Sitting of 13 August 1894

QUESTIONS.

  POLICE ASSISTANCE TO A "PLANTER."
  DR. D. AMBROSE (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the 10th of April last a planter named Shaw, on the Massereene estate, was proceeding to Slane with a load of straw, and that the load having slipped or fallen two policemen stationed at Glassallen assisted him in rebuilding it; whether this is any part of the duty of the Constabulary; and if the performance of such work interferes with their usefulness in other respects?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): I am informed that the facts are as stated in the first paragraph. The load of straw had slipped, and was in danger of toppling over and injuring the horse. The action of the police was quite voluntary, and they assisted the man regardless of whether he was a new tenant or an evicted tenant.
  758
  The police are expected to render aid to the public in any emergency of this kind, and I believe that in the same district a police patrol by their timely action recently saved the life of the only cow owned by an evicted tenant.

  DROWNED IN THE RIVER FFRWD.
  MR. D. THOMAS (): On behalf of the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Denbighshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the recent death by drowning in the River Ffrwd (which divides the Counties of Denbigh and Flint) of two little girls aged six years or thereabouts when returning from school; whether such accident was due to the dangerous and unprotected state of the bridge over this river which is a public thoroughfare; whether application has been made to the Wrexham Highway Board and the Hawarden Highway Board (in whose districts the bridge is situate) to repair and protect such bridge; whether these bodies have declined to do so on the ground that they are not responsible for its condition; and whose duty is it to place the bridge into a state in which it will no longer be dangerous to life?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. SHAW-LEFEVRE,): I have made inquiry, and I am informed that the structure in question can hardly be designated a bridge. It consists of two joints of timber about six feet long, with slabs forming a footway of about 18 inches in width, and that it has no hand-rail upon it. The structure in question, it is stated, was erected by the owner of some cottages adjoining the river for the convenience of his tenants, and has not been recognised as a public bridge. One end of the structure is in the Wrexham Highway District, and the other in the Hope and Hawarden District. I am informed that the Wrexham Highway Board took prompt steps, as soon as the dangerous place was brought to their notice, with the intention of doing whatever lay in their power to remedy it, and that they have no doubt that they will have the co-operation of the Hope and Hawarden District Board in the matter.

  ALLEGED DIMINUTION IN INCOMES OF NATIONAL TEACHERS.
  MR. KNOX (): On behalf of the hon. Member for East Cavan, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the decrease in the national teachers' capitation grant from 4s. 8d. to 3s. 8d. per head, the Government intend to take any steps to increase the fund in the manner contemplated by the Education Act; whether the widows and orphans of deceased teachers receive anything from the pension fund; and, if so, under what conditions; whether, in a recent case in County Cavan, the widow and orphans of a teacher who died after 34 years' service received no allowance; and whether the Government will publish an Actuarial Report showing the state of the pension fund at the present time, and announce any changes they propose to make in its regulation?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Education Act of 1892 provides, in abolition or relief of school fees, a sum of £210,000 a year for the teachers over and above all the other Parliamentary grants. The distribution of this sum takes place under the following heads:—(a) A capitation allowance to schools paid by capitation; (b) an increase of 20 per cent, on salaries where teachers are paid by salaries and not by capitation; (c) a special bonus to assistant teachers; (d) a special allowance to teachers of small schools; and, (e) after payment of all these sums, the residue of the £210,000 is divided in an all-round capitation grant on the average school attendance. This residue must of course be a varying sum from year to year, and the more that must be paid under the first four specified heads the less necessarily will be the residue; and, again, as the average attendance increases, the less will be the quotient of the available residue into which the attendance is divided. Hut every penny of the £210,000 goes to the teachers. While the school fees to teachers in 1893 were about £88,000 less than for the year 1891—the year preceding the passing of the Act—the grant of £210,000 was a net gain of £122,000, or an average of about £10 per teacher. There is no provision for pensions or allowances for the widows and orphans
  760
  of deceased teachers, excepting the provision that if a teacher die in the service the premiums paid by him towards his pension shall be paid to his legal representative, with interest at 3 per cent, per annum. The statement in the third paragraph is correct. The matter referred to in the concluding paragraph is one for the Treasury.
  MR. KNOX: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the clause in the Education Act referred to in the answer does not fix an absolute sum of £210,000 a year, but contemplates an increase in the grant in proportion to the increase of the English grant, and that it was 9 per cent, of the total sum granted to the United Kingdom; and is he aware that the English grant has increased very much more than was contemplated at the time?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL (): Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to the effect of this Act on schools where fees were high?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I do not know how far the statements of my hon. and learned Friend are authentic. No doubt we can discuss the matter on the Education Estimates. I will inquire as to the question put by the hon. Member for South Tyrone.

  BELFAST POST OFFICE.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER (): I beg to ask the Postmaster General why no decision has yet been communicated to the members of the sorting staff of the Belfast Post Office, who forwarded a Memorial some 15 months ago praying that they might be accorded their seniority upon the staff of the office from the date of their entry as auxiliaries, and not from the date of their Civil Service certificates, which at present determines the order of seniority; whether the present disabilities of these members of the staff arise from causes over which they had no control, and is he aware that loss of seniority in this case entails pecuniary loss to the officers concerned; and whether the decision recently given in the case of a member of the staff of the Dublin Sorting Office is applicable in the case of Belfast?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLBY,): The hon. Member has apparently been misinformed. The Memorial in question,

  761
  far from having been left undecided for 15 months, was answered within six weeks of its receipt. The prayer of the Memorial was that the order in which the Memorialists had stood on their class for the last six years might be altered, and this, they were informed, could not be done. An appeal which they subsequently made adduced cases which were not in point. It is true that since that answer was given a different practice has been introduced, and now rotation on a class is not exclusively determined by the dates of the Civil Service certificates; but to make such practice retrospective in its operation is absolutely out of the question—introducing, as it would, an element of disturbance into almost every office in the Kingdom.
  MR. A. FORSTER: Would it not be possible to remedy the grievance in cases in which the default in issuing the certificates was in no way due to remissness on the part of the person appointed, the grievance in such cases being attributable to the action of the Post Office?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I do not think it would be possible without doing an injustice to other members of the staff.

  THE EX-CHIEE CONSTABLE OF WARWICKSHIRE.
  MR. COBB (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet received any communication from the Joint Committee of the County of Warwick with respect to Mr. Kinchant's pension in accordance with the resolution passed by the Committee some weeks ago?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOB THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): Yes; and an answer has been sent.

  THE DUBLIN DRAINAGE SCHEME.
  MR. ROSS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the proposed new drainage scheme for Dublin is, if carried out, likely to cost at least £500,000; that, in addition to the cost of construction, an annual charge of £12,000 for maintenance will be thrown on the ratepayers; that the scheme has been disapproved of by the chief sanitary experts, except the engineer who devised
  762
  it; and that the Corporation, notwith standing the protests of all the Dublin newspapers except one, and the resolutions of the ratepayers in public meetings, have refused to grant any inquiry into the merits of the scheme; and whether, in view of the fact that the War Office is the largest ratepayer in Dublin, before proceeding further with the negotiations for the sale of the Pigeon House Fort, ho will call for a Report on the merits of the scheme from the Royal Engineers Corps in Dublin?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOODALL,): The Secretary of State is not informed of the estimated ultimate cost to the City of Dublin of its proposed drainage scheme, nor of the difference of opinion that may exist in Dublin on the subject. Any agreement with the Corporation of Dublin in regard to Pigeon House Fort will be based on a full consideration of all the conditions essential to the agreement as far as the War Department is concerned.
  MR. ROSS: Has the Secretary for War ever called for or received any Report from the Royal Engineer Corps on the merits of this scheme?
  MR. WOODALL: Yes, Sir; the Royal Engineers have continually advised the right hon. Gentleman on the merits of the scheme, so far as it affects War Department property.
  MR. ROSS: Is there any objection to laying the Report of the Royal Engineers on the Table of the House?
  MR. WOODALL: I do not think I can undertake to publish what, after all, is merely a Departmental Report.

  RAILWAY RATES AT BOYLE.
  MR. BODKIN (): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade is he aware that traders in Boyle have to pay £4 per wagon of six tons by rail from Dublin, while traders in Sligo, which is 30 miles further, have only £3 to pay; and will he have inquiries instituted and remonstrance made with a view to the removal of this state of things?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BRYCE,): The hon. Member does not state the particular description of traffic on which the rates he quotes are charged; if he will give further particulars I will

  763
  communicate with the Company. Possibly sea competition has something to do with the difficulty.
  MR. BODKIN: I believe the traffic carried is largely porter.
  MR. BRYCE: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will send me a letter on the subject.

  BEHAR CADASTRAL SURVEY.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of Bengal, or the Government of India, propose to introduce into the local Legislative Council a measure to legalise their own interpretation of the words "a local area," in the Bengal Tenancy Act, in opposition to high legal authority, so as to enable them to impose further taxation on the land of Behar for the purposes of the Behar Cadastral Survey; whether those Governments propose also to empower themselves to collect by a summary process from each landlord all his tenants shares, in addition to his own share, of the costs of the Cadastral Survey, the landlord being left to recoup himself as best he can by the ordinary tedious process of law; whether the local officers have reported that this procedure will embitter the relations between the landlords and the tenants of Behar, without reconciling the tenants to the Government survey policy; whether the official members of the Legislative Council will be permitted to vote on these questions as they think fit; and whether the further correspondence, including the Reports of the local officers, can be submitted to Parliament before the Debate on the Indian Budget?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): I am not aware of any proposal such as is suggested in the first clause of the question. The Government of India are acting on the advice of their Advocate General as to the interpretation of the words "local area." It is proposed to collect the costs of the Survey, so far as that cost is not borne by the Government, from and through the laud-lords, by the same procedure as that by which the road cess has been collected during the past 23 years. I am not aware of any Reports by local officers to the effect mentioned in the question. As
  764
  regards the votes of the official members of the Legislative Council, there will be no difference between the Behar Survey Bill and any other Government measure. The further Papers moved for by my hon. Friend were laid upon the Table on the 6th of July, and were distributed to Members to-day.

  ANNUAL LEAVE IN THE POST OFFICE.
  MR. COHEN (): I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he is prepared to grant to the senior officers of the Post Office an extension of their annual leave, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Order in Council of 15th August, 1890?
  MR. A. MORLEY: Clause 7 of the Order in Council, 1890, provides a maximum limit for leave beyond which Heads of Departments are not at liberty to go. Any extension of annual leave in so large a Department as the Post Office involves such grave financial and administrative considerations that I am not disposed to overrule the decision at which my predecessor (Mr. Raikes) arrived on the subject.
  MR. COHEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the amount of leave granted to the senior officers does not amount to the maximum referred to, and that in the Customs and Inland Revenue Departments the full leave is given?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I am not aware of that.

  ALLEGED WRONGFUL IMPRISONMENT AT LEIGH.
  MR. WOODS (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the alleged wrongful imprisonment of Charles Barton at the Leigh Police Court, Lancashire, on Monday, July 30; whether he is aware that at the hearing of the case evidence was given by four witnesses that Barton was at Astley, which is more than a mile from the place where the assault was committed on the police constable, at the time when the offence was committed, and that not one single independent witness gave evidence against Barton; whether he is aware that the Chairman of the Magistrates admitted that the evidence showed that

  765
  Barton was not present when the assault was committed, and that Sergeant Gledhill and Police Constable Shaw saw two persons named Speakman and Leech on the Sunday, the day previous to the hearing, and were told that Barton was at Astley at the time the offence was committed at Tyldesley; that the two policemen refrained from giving this evidence at the trial; and that the Magistrates convicted Barton on the ground that he might have been present; and if lie will cause a strict inquiry into the circumstances under which he has been convicted?
  MR. ASQUITH: I have had careful inquiry made, and have received a Report, together with the evidence, from the Clerk to the Magistrates by whom the case was heard. Evidence was given by three witnesses on Barton's behalf as to his whereabouts on the night of the assault, but on the other hand police constable Duncan, who was corroborated by another police constable, swore positively that when he, Duncan, was on the ground Barton came up and kicked him on the leg; that he knew Barton well, and called out, to him, "I see you, Barton," and Barton bung down his head and ran to the back of the crowd. The Chairman did not, admit, that the evidence showed that Barton was not present when the assault was committed. On the contrary, be said that the Magistrates believed the evidence of the police. Serjeant Gledhill and police constable Shaw were told by Speakman and Leech on Sunday before the hearing that Barton was at Astley at the time the offence was committed at Tyldesley. The constables could not themselves give this evidence. At the hearing Speakman was a witness. Leech was not. It was thought his evidence would be immaterial. He spoke to the defendant being at Astley at 7 and at 10 o'clock, but the assault took place at 9.30. I see no reason to question the justice of this decision or the propriety of the sentence.

  THE MILITARY CONTRIBUTION OF THE STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the cause of the delay in coming to a decision as to the amount of the contribution to be paid for military expendi-
  766
  ture by the Straits Settlements; and whether he is aware that grave dissatisfaction exists there in consequence of the present, impost, and that a number of urgent public works of importance, education, and postal arrangements, have been restricted in consequence of the present rate of taxation to meet the military contribution?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): The question affects throe different Departments, and is one of considerable complexity; at the same time, I regret the delay that has taken place in coining to a decision; and I hope that the decision will not be now much longer delayed.

  WATER SUPPLY TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE CORRIDORS.
  MR. WEIR (): I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, having regard to the fact that one set of water-closets off the Committee Room corridors is supplied from a cistern from which water is drawn for domestic purposes, he will state from what cistern and source the drinking water in the dining room and bar is obtained?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply for him. The drinking water in the dining room and bar is drawn direct from the main tanks of the building.
  MR. WEIR: From what source is the water obtained?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I have merely read the answer sent me. I have no doubt the water is drawn from a good source.
  MR. WEIR: Is it from the River Thames or from the artesian wells?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I am unable to answer that question.
  MR. WEIR: I will put it down again.

  REACH NATIONAL SCHOOL, SWAFF- HAM'S PRIOR.
  SIR F. S. POWELL: On behalf of the noble Lord the Member for Rochester, I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the managers of Reach National School, Swaffham's Prior, were warned, in November last

  767
  year, for not having a certificated mistress; whether he is aware that they found great difficulty in obtaining one; whether the grant has, in consequence, been this year reduced from £38 to £11; whether the managers have now complied; and whether, in view of the fact that the school was under a non-certificated though efficient mistress for only about four months, he will reconsider the reduction of the grant?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,): This school was without a certificated teacher for eight months of the school year, ending last October, and consequently received only four mouths' grant. During the year in question, the managers saved £28 15s. on salaries, as compared with the previous year, while the grant forfeited amounted to £22 6s. 4d. They thus appear to have made a clear gain of between £6 and £7. A certificated teacher has since been appointed. I see no reason for reconsidering the case.

  THE POLICE AND THE BOTHWELL PARK MINERS.
  MR. D.CRAWFORD (): I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to a complaint from a public meeting in the neighbourhood, that the police were the aggressors in a disturbance at the mining village of Bothwell Park, last week; and whether, in the interests of the public and of the Police Force, he has made or will make inquiry into this complaint?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): I am in communication with the Standing Joint Committee of Lanarkshire on the matter referred to by the hon. Member, and hope to have a Report from them of the circumstances of the case to-morrow or next day.

  THE TUBERCULOSIS COMMISSION.
  MR. D. CRAWFORD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can explain the cause of the delay in issuing the Report of the Coin-mission on Tuberculosis, and state when it may be expected?
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: I stated on the 20th of last month that I was in-
  768
  formed that the Commissioners were fully aware of the desirability of reporting as early as possible, that no pains were being spared to complete the work, and that the Report would shortly be issued. I have no later information on the subject.

  VENTILATION AT ST. STEPHEN'S.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he will state why no effect has been given to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Ventilation, 1891, that the extraction shafts, common to all the rooms, be furnished with non-return or back-pressure valves, in order to prevent down draughts, and that the existing ventilating furnace arrangements be improved?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The whole of the improvements in the ventilation of this building which were recommended by the Select Committee of 1891 have been carried out.
  MR. WEIR: The First Commissioner of Works declared the other day that no alteration had been made. I shall have to put another question on this subject.

  THE INDIAN BUDGET.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, before the Indian Budget comes on for discussion, he will have circulated, or placed at the disposal of Members, in the Vote Office, Copies of the House of Lords Paper containing the discussion in the Viceroy's Council on the Tariff Bill, and the dissents of the Members of the Council of India on that subject?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I have taken the necessary steps for having the Paper referred to sent to the Vote Office.
  SIR W. HOULDSWORTH (): Is there any objection to publishing the correspondence which has taken place between the Indian Government and the India Office on the subject?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The correspondence is still going on.
  MR. TOMLINSONasked whether the Government would arrange before the Debate was taken to have printed for the use of Members a list of the tariffs?
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he thought that would be included in the Return.

  DENUNCIATIONS OF LAND-GBABBEBS IN COUNTY ROSCOMMON.
  MR. W. KENNY (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant-of Ireland if his attention has been drawn to the fact that a large meeting was held at Muckinagh, County Roscommon, on Sunday, the 5th instant, for the purpose of denouncing the conduct of a farmer who had taken au evicted farm on the estate of Major Balfe, at which speeches were made urging the people not to save the grabber's meadow, to keep an eye on the shopkeepers who were in the habit of receiving him, and then he would begin to see that the people would not tolerate such reptiles in the country; whether ho is aware that Mr. James Neary also spoke at the meeting and said they had assembled there to discuss the accursed system of land-grabbing: if this Mr. Neary has been recently created a Justice of the Peace; if any steps were taken by the Police Authorities to prohibit the meeting or make any of the parties at it amenable; and whether Mr. Neary's language will be brought under the notice of the Lord Chancellor?
  MR. BODKIN: Is there anything illegal in a meeting held to discuss the system of laud-grabbing in Ireland?
  MR. J. MORLEY: That is a question on which I am not prepared to express a general opinion. Cases must be judged on their own merits. A meeting was held near Muckinagh on the date mentioned in the question on the Paper for the purpose of condemning land-grabbing, and speeches to the effect stated were made on the occasion. About 600 persons were present at the meeting. The police had instructions not to allow the meeting to be held within a mile of the farm to which reference is made in the question. The reply to the third and fourth paragraphs is in the affirmative. I shall bring the language of Mr. Neary under the notice of the Lord Chancellor. The other speeches made on the occasion of the meeting are now under the consideration of the Law Officers.

  LEVEL CROSSINGS ON THE BELFAST AND COUNTY DOWN RAILWAY.
  MR. RENTOUL (): I beg to ask the President of the Board of
  770
  Trade whether a Memorial has been presented to the Board of Trade calling attention to a level crossing on the Belfast and County Down Railway, near Helen's Bay, which is alleged to be dangerous to the public; and whether such danger exists; and, if so, whether anything has been done or can be done in the matter?
  MR. BRYCE: Yes, Sir; I have seen the Memorial referred to. The crossing is an ordinary occupation crossing, and the Board of Trade have no powers over it. An Inspecting Officer of this Board recently visited the place, and advised the Board that there was nothing exceptionally dangerous in the crossing or its surroundings. I fear nothing can be done in the matter, as the Act of 1863 affects only turnpike roads and public carriage roads.

  THE WIGAN POLICE AND PUBLIC MEETINGS.
  MR. WOODS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that on the 7th instant, while a public meeting was being held near the train terminus in Wigan, and in consequence of a drunken man disturbing the meeting, the police officer ordered the meeting to be broken up, took the names and addresses of the chairman and lecturer, and threatened to summon them: whether the police officer had any authority to order a peaceably-conducted meeting to be thus broken up; and whether he proposes to take any steps to remedy the action of the police officer?
  MR. ASQUITH: Yes; inquiry has been made and a Report received from the police of Wigan from which, and from the statement of another witness, it appears that the police constable had to interfere in order to stop two fights. He did not break up the meeting, though ho requested the speaker to desist, and took his name. The speaker, I am informed, continued lecturing for an hour afterwards.

  GOVERNMENT PRINTING CONTRACTS AND THE FAIR WAGES RESOLUT10N.
  MR. WOODS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that among the compositors and associated employers in the printing of London

  771
  there exists great dissatisfaction respecting the manner in which Government contracts for printing are let, some of which have been let to firms who neither pay the standard rates of wages, and work more hours than is recognised by the Employers' Printing Association and the London Compositors' Society; and whether, in future, the Government will give effect to the successive Resolutions passed by the House of Commons dealing with the subject of letting contracts, by inserting into all future Government printing contracts a clause making it imperative that the wages paid and the hours worked shall be those recognised in the Loudon scale?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I assume that my hon. Friend refers to the firm of Messrs. Eyre and Spottiswoode. I have already made inquiries, and the information at my disposal appears to show that, taken as a whole, the wages paid by the firm in question in their non-Union house are as liberal as those paid in their Union house and other Union houses, and that the normal hours are the same. As regards overtime (which, I am assured, is very limited in amount) and the alleged divergences from the London scale of prices, I propose to see a representative of the firm and to make further inquiries from him, and if the facts should constitute in my judgment a broach of the Resolution of the House, I should not hesitate to take action.

  THE CROFTERS' ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to carry the Crofters' Act Amendment Bill this Session, he will arrange for an Autumn Session to pass that Bill and any other pressing measures? The hon. Member, in putting the question, said ho desired to amend it by inserting, after the word "whether" in the first line, the phrase "having regard to the fact that the Government decline to use the closure." He further asked why the right hon. Gentleman had abandoned all hope of passing this Bill during the present Session; and whether it was within his recollection that only last week he advised the Highland Members not to abandon all hope of this Bill passing this Session.
  DR. MACGREGOR (): Before the right hon. Gentleman replies
  772
  —[Opposition laughter]—I am glad my getting up has so agreeable an effect on Gentlemen opposite, and creates so much merriment—I wish to ask him, being specially interested in this subject, whether he is aware that I can neither endorse nor approve of the suggestions contained in the question of my hon. Friend?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): If my hon. Friend behind me (Dr. Macgregor) cannot agree with my hon. Friend below me (Mr. Weir) he cannot expect that I can coincide with this suggestion, and when my hon. Friend talks of abandoning all hope, he may remember there was an ancient inscription to that effect, and I believe it might be written over the door of the House of Commons in the middle of August. I am afraid I cannot gratify the wish of my hon. Friend.
  MR. WEIR: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that many of the Irish Members are prepared to sacrifice their holiday on the altar of duty, and to stop here in this House in order to advance legislation, not only for the Highland Crofters, but for the masses of the people of the country.
  [No answer was given].

  HEVER SCHOOLS.
  MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN (): I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if he can now state under what conditions the grant of £10 which has been withheld from Hever Schools, Kent, will be paid to the managers?
  MR. ACLAND: As I informed the hon. Member on the 23rd of July, this grant will be paid if the managers satisfy the Department that the conditions of the Code as to population are satisfied.
  MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Is it not a fact there is not sufficient time to get it done?
  MR. ACLAND: There is time.
  MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect managers to take a private census of their own?
  MR. ACLAND: Yes, Sir; we constantly ask for one in all parts of the country.

  CLASHMORE CONSTABULARY BARRACK.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN (): On behalf of the hon. Member for West Waterford, I beg to ask t he Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the defective sanitary condition of the constabulary barrack at Clashmore, County Waterford, has been reported upon by Dr. O'Ryan, sanitary officer of the district; and whether, within the past few months, throe constables and a sergeant have had to be removed there-from to hospital suffering from typhoid fever; and, if so, are steps in progress for rendering the barrack safe for occupation?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The defective sanitary condition of the constabulary barrack referred to has been reported on by Dr. O'Ryan, medical attendant to the Constabulary at that post, and within the past six mouths a sergeant and a constable were removed to hospital suffering from typhoid fever. Another constable has also fallen ill, though it is not yet known whether he suffers from typhoid. The position of this barrack is considered to be an unhealthy one, and there being no other suitable house, the station is being abolished, with the concurrence of Government.

  STRABANE RATE COLLECTION.
  MR. T. M. I1EALY (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if it has been brought to his notice that James Craig, Kate Collector, Strabane Union, is in arrear with his collection, £312, in consequence of which some voters must be disqualified for non-payment of rates at the forthcoming revision for North Tyrone; whether Craig furnished the Clerk of Union with any list of defaulters, so that official objections might be entered on the Voters List for non-payment of rates; whether the private objector for the North Tyrone Nationalists, John Torish, applied for and was refused permission to inspect the list of defaulters, if such exists: whether, last year, a number of persons in Craig's collection, who had not paid rates, were allowed without objection to remain on the Register; and whether the Government will secure that private objectors for political parties in North Tyrone and elsewhere shall be
  774
  allowed free access to all Poor Law records and documents on which the right to the franchise depends, so that if, whether by mistake, neglect, or any other cause the Union officials fail in their duty, an opportunity may be given to correct errors in time to affect the Register?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have received a Report from the Local Government Hoard on this question of my hon. and learned Friend, but as there are certain matters in respect of which I desire some further information, I shall lie glad if he will defer it until Thursday next.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: As the rate collector has again refused our Inspector access to his books, will the right hon. Gentleman call his attention to the fact that he is acting contrary to Act of Parliament?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I will cause immediate inquiry to lie made.

  REFUSAL TO GRANT AN ARMS LICENCE.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for West Mayo, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can give any reason why J. T. Staunton, rural postman in Achill Island, was refused a gun licence by the Resident Magistrate at Belmullet, although he was informed that the only object in getting a gun was for the purpose of shooting seals and selling the skins?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Resident Magistrate informs me that, in the exercise of the discretion vested in him by law, ho declined to issue an arms licence to the person named in the question. It would be contrary to practice to state the reasons which influenced the Resident Magistrate in refusing to grant the licence in this or other cases. But I am not satisfied with these reasons, and lam of opinion the man should have the licence.

  HARVEST WEATHER FORECASTS.
  MR. HUGH HOARE (): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the experiment now being made in Cambridgeshire and some other counties, whereby the Meteorological Society telegraph the weather forecast at 3.30 p.m.

  775
  for the next 24 hours to certain country post offices, could not be made more thorough and useful by his arranging with the Postmaster General for him to direct that the rural postmen shall convey a copy of the telegram to villages where they deliver letters, but which are not within easy reach of the telegraph office; and whether, for example, a copy of the telegraphic forecast now sent to the small village of Arlington could be given to the rural postman who delivers in Orwell, Wimpole, Croydon, and Tadlow, and affixed outside these post offices for the benefit of farmers and others?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULT URE (Mr. H. GARDNER,): The suggestion of my hon. Friend is, I think, well worth consideration, and I shall be very glad to confer with my right hon. Friend the Postmaster General respecting it in the event of the continuance next year of the arrangements for the telegraphic transmission of the weather forecasts to rural districts. Those arrangements, however, come to an end very shortly, so far as the present year is concerned, and I do not think it would be practicable to extend them as proposed within the limits of the time which still remains.

  THE IRISH LAND AND MIGRATION COMPANY.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been drawn to a letter published by His Eminence Cardinal Logue respecting the Irish Land and Migration Company and the dealings of the Government therewith, especially as to the free gift of £50,000 by the State; and will any explanation be called for from any person concerned, or is it intended to take any notice of or call for any reply to the statements of His Eminence?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have seen the letter. As the question did not appear on the Paper until Saturday, I have not had time to get the information.

  THE SOUTH MEATH POLLING LISTS.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland who is responsible for the denial of the allegations as to the
  776
  insertions of controverted names on the Dunshaughlin Polling List for South Meath; will he order a copy of the Register to be sent over for his personal inspection; and, if not, will he inquire of the police at Ashbourne Barracks, where the 1894 list is exhibited, whether or not the names appear on it; and has he any further information from the Revising Barrister?
  MR. J. MORLEY: As regards the seven names to which the question refers, I find that Brien Carney is on the Register for 1894. Five of the seven names are on the supplementary list for this year, but these persons will not be entitled to the franchise until the supplemental list has been revised at the ensuing revision. This supplemental list when revised will form part of the Register for 1895, but the persons comprised in it are not ipso facto entitled to the franchise for 1894. The list, I am advised, forms no part of the Register for 1894. My hon. and learned Friend in his previous question inquired whether the seven names appear on the present Register, and my reply, which was based on the Report of the Clerk of the Peace, was therefore accurate save in regard to one name—that of Brien Carney.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I am not satisfied with that answer. It is incorrect to say that only one name appears in the Register. I myself produced the Register and showed two. The other five are in the supplemental list. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to tolerate this deception of the House of Commons by an official?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have already given orders for a remonstrance to be addressed to him.
  MR. DODD (): In what way could this official be discharged?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I have had occasion to put five questions in regard to this list. Inasmuch as the majority for South Meath is only 50 and the questions put affect 30 names, will the right hon. Gentleman send down an Inspector to hold an inquiry, sworn or otherwise, into the circumstances?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Not being satisfied with the answers, I am considering the proper way of dealing with the matter. I intend to go into it.
  MR. DODD: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer my question?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: He can be discharged by the Lord Chancellor or under the Act of 1877.

  LOWESTOFT SCHOOLS AND THE EDU- CATION DEPARTMENT.
  MR. H. FOSTER (): I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if a letter was forwarded to the Department in June last from the correspondents of the following schools or groups of schools in Lowestoft, St. Margaret's Group, Boys' British and Girls', Arnold Street, St. John's Parochial, and Christ Church, representing elementary school accommodation for 3,523 children, requesting an interview with the Vice President upon various matters raised by Her Majesty's Inspector; whether the Chief Inspector, whom he has promised to send to Lowestoft to inquire into matters connected with Christ Church Infant School, will be directed to report upon these matters also, and for this purpose to put himself in communication with the managers of these schools; and can he state when the Chief Inspector will go down?
  MR. ACLAND: I was obliged to decline this interview, as I have to decline many others, but I offered an interview with one of the officers of the Department. The Senior Chief Inspector will visit Lowestoft next month, and will inquire into the further matters raised in the question.

  THE COURSE OF BUSINESS.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I promised to make a statement to-day with reference to the future conduct of Public Business. If hon. Gentlemen will look at the Order Paper—I need say nothing about the first three Orders — the Equalisation of Rates Bill, the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, and the Mines (Eight, Hours) Bill. As to the fourth, Local Courts of Bankruptcy (Ireland) Bill, I understand that there is opposition to that Bill, and therefore it will not be proceeded with. I may say I have taken the usual means to ascertain, as far as I can, how far any of the remaining measures are or are not contentions measures. It has been the object of the Govern-
  778
  ment to clear the Paper of all Bills which they have reason to believe are contentious measures, and only to leave upon it those which may be regarded as non-contentious. I believe that the Diseases of Animals Bill, which is a consolidation Bill, may be taken as non-contentious, and it will be proceeded with. The Larceny Acts Amendment Bill is, I understand, opposed, and that will not be proceeded with. The Congested Districts Board (Ireland) Bill, which was brought in by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and also by the Leader of the Opposition, I hope we may treat as strictly a non-contentious measure. Then comes the Statute Law Revision Bill, and Supply. I do not know whether I may regard Supply as non-contentious. As to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, some objection is taken to the form of a Schedule in that Bill. My right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury has taken measures to have that Bill restored to its original form, and therefore I hope there will be no further objection to it. The Prevention of Cruelty to Children Bill is a measure to which, I think, no objection is taken, and the Copyhold Consolidation Bill is in a similar position. With regard to the Coal Mines (Check Weigher) Bill, I believe it is desired to make sonic observations upon it, but it is not substantially opposed. The measures I have mentioned—with the two exceptions I have indicated—are, I believe, strictly non-contentious. I understand that with reference to other Bills not promoted by the Government, they will not be proceeded with, and the time of the House shall not be confined to those Bills to which I have now referred. I do not know that I have anything further to say on the subject. Later on, perhaps, it may be necessary, as is usual when we get still nearer the close of the Session, to have a general Order suspending the Twelve o'clock Rule, not with a view to late Sittings, but in order to conclude the business.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACH (): Are we to understand that to-night and to-morrow will be devoted to the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill, and Supply be taken on Wednesday?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: No; India comes after the Eight Hours Bill. I am not at the present moment in a position

  779
  to say what time will be required for the discussion of the Eight Hours Bill, hut as soon as that is over we shall proceed with the Indian discussion and then with Supply.
  SIR F. S. POWELL (): Can the right hon. Gentleman fix a date for the Education Vote?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I think it would be very inconvenient to take Supply otherwise than in its regular course.
  MR. FLYNN (): Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the vast majority of the Irish Members are in favour of the Local Courts of Bankruptcy (Ireland) Bill, and that it is only opposed by a small knot of Dublin solicitors?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I am afraid it does not come within the category of unopposed Bills, especially if it is opposed by solicitors.
  MR. COHEN (): Do we understand that the discussion on India on Wednesday is contingent upon the passing of the Eight Hours Bill through all its stages to-day or to-morrow?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: If all the stages were finished to-day the Indian business would be taken to-morrow.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  EQUALISATION OF RATES (LONDON) BILL.—(No. 351.)

    CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. SHAW-LEFEVRE,)THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. SHAW-LEFEVRE, Bradford, Central) moved the following new clause:—
    (Provision for intermediate Census.)

    "(1) A Census shall be taken for the purpose of ascertaining the number of persons present within each parish in the Administrative County of London on the night of Sunday, the 29th day of March, 1896, and the provisions of The Census (England and Wales) Act, 1890, including the penal provisions, shall, subject to such modifications as may be prescribed for the purposes of this Act, apply in the case of the Census so taken as if it were taken in pursuance of that Act; except that the expenses certified by the Registrar General to have been incurred in respect of the Census shall lie paid by the London County Council out of the Equalisation Fund, and the amount to be apportioned among the sanitary districts for determining the grant due shall be proportionately reduced.

    780

    (2) The authority making the poor rate in each such parish shall, in every year, make to the Local Government Board a Return of the total number of houses entered in the rate book of their parish. The Return shall be made at such time and in such form, and the numbers shall be ascertained, and the Return shall be verified, in such manner as may be prescribed. The Local Government Board shall forward such Returns to the Registrar General, and thereupon he shall estimate the population of the parish on the 6th day of April in that year, and the population so estimated shall for the purposes of this Act be the population of the parish during the 12 months beginning on that day."

    (3) Provided that the first Return under this section, and a like Return with reference to the year 1891, shall be made within six weeks after the passing of this Act, and the population estimated upon the basis of such Returns shall for the purposes of this Act be the population of the parish for the year beginning on the 6th day of April, 1894.

    (4) If any authority making the poor rate fail to make a Return under this section within one month after the time at which such Return is required, each of the persons constituting the authority who is in fault shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50, and not exceeding £10 for every day during which the failure continues after the first conviction for such failure."

    The right hon. Gentleman said it would be seen that under the new clause the Census would take place on the 29th of March. The cost was estimated at £6,400. The Local Government Board proposed that an estimate of the population should be taken in the years intervening between the Quinquennial Census for the purposes of the Bill, and the Local Authorities were to advise the Registrar General as to the number of houses in the various districts. Under those circumstances, he would be able to make a fairly accurate estimate of the population year by year. The Board believed that a Census every five years would he sufficient to meet the purposes of the Bill.
    MR. GOSCHEN ()said, the clause certainly carried out the general undertaking given by the right hon. Gentleman, and he had no observation to make upon it, except one; and that was to ask the right hon. Gentleman why he had chosen Sunday as the day upon which to take the Census? Sunday was a day which, in London, did not give so fair a view of the resident inhabitants as any other day. There were certain townships which would certainly be weakened in population by taking Sunday

    781
    for the Census clay. He understood that the particular day was the Sunday before Easter, and he roust say he did not think that would be a convenient day. A Sunday ought not to be taken at all except for some special consideration.
    MR. COHENsaid, he should like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman had assured himself that six weeks was a sufficient period to give the Local Authorities for the preparation of the first Returns? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would say whether he had made any inquiry.
    SIR F. S. POWELLsaid, he had no desire for a voluminous Census at the quinquential interval, and he was sure that a Census of the kind suggested would be of great assistance. They knew that the General Census had proved very wide of the estimate. The Registrar General had, no doubt, made the best calculation he could from the materials at his command; but he hoped that in the future there would be considerable assistance, in London at all events, arising from this Quinquennial Census.
    SIR P. TEMPLE ()said, that in some parishes of London, and especially in Hampstead, where the population was steadily increasing, to take the Census on Sunday, particularly at the time of Easter, would place them at a great disadvantage, for a large number of people would be out of town. He would like to ask the President of the Local Government Board what was meant by the allusion in the second line of Sub-section 3?
    MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, he had chosen Sunday because it was in accordance with the universal practice to take them upon that day. The Registrar General had informed him that there were certain conveniences in taking the Census on a Sunday. He had selected the Sunday before Easter, instead of the Sunday after Easter, as a small concession to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square. That would be fair, at all events, to some parishes, and especially St. George's, Hanover Square. With regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for Islington, the Local Government Board had carefully considered whether six weeks would be sufficient. All that the Local Authorities would have to do was to fill in the number of
    782
    houses rated, which was not a very large work, and ought very well to be concluded in six weeks.
    Motion agreed to.
    Clause read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, he could not pretend to be satisfied with the small concession that the President of the Board of Trade had made. It would be more proper to take this Quinquennial Census on some other day than Sunday. As he had said, on that day a large proportion of the population would be out of London. However, the right hon. Gentleman was master of the position, and he (Mr. Goschen) did not propose to move any Amendment, because he was afraid that in the present condition of the House it would be impossible to obtain a majority. In the interests of his constituents he repeated he did not think Sunday a well-chosen day for the Census.
    Motion agreed to.
    Clause added to the Bill.
    MR. GOSCHENproposed an Amendment omitting from line 6 the words "form a fund" in relation to the Equalisation Fund, in order to insert "open an account," contending that the latter was the more proper description of what was really done.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 6, to leave out the words "form a fund," and insert the words "open an account."—(Mr. Goschen.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'form a fund' stand part of the Bill."
    MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, he had carefully considered this matter, and although the description "open an account" might properly describe the operation in the earlier sections, it did not describe the transactions later OD, and "fund" was the proper expression. The Government had a precedent for the term they had chosen in the Act of 1870, for which the right hon. Gentleman opposite was responsible, where the expression used was "the Common Poor Law Fund."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On Motion of Mr. SHAW-LEFEVRE, the following Amendments were agreed to:—
    Clause 1, page 2, line 18, leave out "tender," and insert "render."
    Line 28, leave out "If any Sanitary Authority is found by," and insert "Where."
    Line 29, leave out "to have made default within the meaning of," and insert "under."
    Line 30, after "1891," insert—
    "are satisfied that a Sanitary Authority have been guilty of such default as in that section mentioned, and have made an order limiting a time for the performance of the duty of the authority."
    Line 32, leave out "grant," and insert "payment."
    Line 38, after "year," insert—
    "and the amount to be apportioned among the sanitary districts for determining the grant due shall be proportionately increased."
    Clause 2, page 3, line 3, leave out "an equalisation charge," and insert "a receipt under this Act."
    Clause 3, page 3, line 12, after "being," insert—
    "including the Census taken in pursuance of this Act, or in any year in which a Census is not taken according to the population estimated by the Registrar General under this Act."
    After line 12, insert—
    "The expression 'prescribed' means prescribed by the Local Government Board."
    MR. SHAW-LEFEVREasked to be allowed to move the Third Reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Shaw-Lefevre.)
    MR. COHENsaid, he did not wish to delay the Third Reading of the Bill. He wished to thank the right hon. Gentleman for having incorporated into the Bill an Amendment which he set down in almost his own words. So far as his opinion went, he thought the Bill would be advantageous to the Metropolis, less on account of its equalising results, which he did not think would be considerable, than on account of the requirement that the authorities should render a statutory account of the mode in which they had spent on the various services the grant out of the Equalisation Fund. The account required to be ren-
    784
    dered would probably do as much to equalise rates in the true sense of the term as any other provision of the Bill, because it would bring to light the differences in the expenditure by the various parishes on these services which he pointed out in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman would not give them the control they asked for; but the very fact of the rendering of an account being made compulsory would, he was convinced, operate as a check on some extravagantly disposed Local Authorities. Out of the 40 authorities enumerated in the Parliamentary Return, no less than 21 did not give a separate return of the amount spent on lighting. In these cases lighting was included in the general rate, and, as they all knew, lighting was just one of those services in which extravagance or luxury was possible without saying it was indulged in. He thought it would be a great advantage to have this expenditure included in a Parliamentary Return, and he was quite sure it would be extremely instructive to know how much of the Equalisation Fund was spent on the various services, so that Parliament might know to what extent this Bill had accomplished the end they all desired—namely, that of an aid to sanitary expenditure, especially in the poorer districts. In his view the success of the Bill would not be tested so much by its equalising results, which would not be large, as by the effect it produced on the efficient administration of the sanitation of London, which he hoped might be both lasting and important.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, that whatever the opinion might be, with regard to the usefulness of the measure, of those hon. Members who sat on his side of the House, they certainly felt that they had done their best to limit the evil results that they saw would arise under the provisions of the Bill as it first came before the House. While he could not regard the Bill in the same rosy light as the hon. Member for Islington did, he believed it to be a genuine and honest effort on the part of the Government to introduce some reform in local finance and other matters directly connected with it.
    MR. SHAW-LEFEVREfelt that many wise Amendments had been brought forward by those who in the

    785
    first instance opposed the Bill, and he begged to thank hon. Members for the assistance they had given him, which had enabled him to effect many important alterations in the Bill.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC BILL. (No. 156.)

    COMMITTEE. [Progress, 10th August.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 22, after the word "mentioned," to insert the words—
    "but the Board of Trade may, if they think fit, extend the said period of six mouths with respect to any complaints made to them during that period."
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, he only agreed with this Amendment so far as this Bill was concerned. Did he understand that this Amendment only applied to complaints arising under the Bill now before the House?
    MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, yes, that was so.
    MR. DODD ()said, he had no doubt this clause would be accepted by the House, but he desired to point out that it must he accepted as a compromise, not as to the whole matters in dispute as between the traders and the Railway Companies, but a compromise with regard to only a portion of the matters in dispute. It did not deal with two subjects which received special consideration before the Select Committee—namely, the question of risk notes and the composition of the tribunal which was to decide matters of this kind. The Committee reported that the question of the risk notes of Railway Companies required consideration and alteration, and also pointed to other matters equally needing revision. This clause, therefore, did not settle the dispute, but dealt with only one portion of the dispute. As to the method with which it dealt with this one portion, he could not say ho thought it altogether satisfactory to the traders. He did not now propose to go into details,
    786
    but he could only regard the sub-section, which compelled the payment by the claimant within 14 days of the 1892 rate, as one which would work unfairly, and he thought that injustice would be done under the sub-section if it became law as they amended it on Friday night, on the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol (Sir M. Hicks-Beach). What would occur under that sub-section of the Bill as it stood was this: At present the 1892 rate was taken as the standard rate for traders. Presently an increase on the 1892 rate, which had not been challenged, would be taken as the standard rate; presently an increase on the increase, which had not been challenged, would be taken as the standard rate. Under those circumstances, he could not regard the compromise as altogether a happy one; but as it was important that the Bill should be passed through Committee that night, he should not ask the Committee to disagree with the clause.
    MR. TOMLINSON ()said, he desired to support the remarks of the hon. Member who had just spoken. He thought they had a light to complain, and ought to complain, of the manner in which this great and important question had been treated by the Government. Last year the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade told them that a Committee was to be appointed in order to accelerate the dealing with this important question in the interests of the traders. They were told the Committee would only sit for a few days, and they would then make a Report, and that upon that Report legislation would be immediately proceeded with. Many of them were not satisfied with the Report of the Select Committee, and he thought that if the Committee itself and the terms of Reference had been widened they might have had a Report which would have proved a good basis for legislative action. The interests of traders all over the country were such as to require the Government to give them proper and fair and reasonable time to discuss this question in the House; as it was they were driven to the fag-end of the Session when many Members were worn out, and were not able to be present to give them their assistance on this question. Traders could not regard this as a satisfactory measure, and he would not have accepted

    787
    this clause if they had not been driven into a corner by the Government. They were, however, obliged to accept it, as it was in the power of the Railway Companies to press them for those rates which, even by the admission of the Committee, were excessive. He accepted the Bill simply as being better than nothing at all, but he claimed to have an early re-consideration of the whole question. He hoped sufficient time would be allowed between this and the Report stage to enable them to fully consider the clause as amended, because he doubted very much whether the Amendment would quite harmonise with the clause.
    MR. CHANNING ()said, he would like to take that opportunity of saying that the action he had felt himself compelled to take with regard to this Bill was largely due to the fact that this year he happened to represent, as their Chairman, the Central and Associated Chambers of Agriculture, and it must be well within the knowledge of many Members of the House that the Central Chamber had passed many resolutions demanding a much more stringent clause than the present one, demanding legislation that would give the right of appeal to traders in the case of all rates, and that it had also passed resolutions in the present year condemning in the most emphatic way the inadequate Report of the Select Committee and condemning this Bill, which was more or less based upon that Report. He thought these resolutions of an important Agricultural Body, representing many farmers and many large societies of the country, had deserved a fuller consideration, and should have received a fuller consideration, from the Government and the House than they had. He must express a hope that before they parted with this Bill they would have some more definite assurance than that which had already been given by his right hon. Friend that this stopgap Bill was not the end of this question. With regard to the action of the Railway Companies in reference to this Bill, and the changes which they had managed to obtain in it, he ventured to say that a large section of the country would be convinced that the Railway Companies had, as usual, got the best of them in regard to the essential questions at issue. The Railway Companies had been enabled
    788
    to assert their influence with the Board of Trade in a way prejudicial to the interests of the trade of this country, and had practically secured for themselves and for their shareholders greater consideration than even the very inadequate Report of the Select Committee of last year would have led the country to expect. He would like to point out what the situation was that had arisen. They were asked to afford this small relief to traders now, and they were asked to afford it on the strength of the Report which condemned in the most emphatic terms the whole policy and conduct of the Railway Companies in using the powers which Parliament and the Board of Trade most unfortunately placed in their hands. The Report made it perfectly clear that the Railway Companies entered into under takings with the Board of Trade which they violated by the outrageous increase of rates carried out at the beginning of 1893. He did say, therefore, that they must have an understanding with the Government that this stop-gap measure was not the completion of the duty of Parliament, and of the Government with regard to this question, and that when the question of the reconstitution of the Railway Commission came under the review of Parliament, as it must shortly, they would have an adequate and complete investigation of and decision on all these questions, and thus supplement what was imperfect and inadequate in the present Bill. He must take great exception to the Amendments which were rushed upon the House at the very last moment on Friday night, without being even placed on the Paper, at the instance of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol. He did not think it was fair in treating this Bill as an uncontested measure to have Amendments introduced——
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that he must discuss the clause as it was. He could not discuss how particular Amendments came to be introduced.
    MR. CHANNINGasked if he could not discuss the clause with the Amendment as it now stood?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member could not discuss the manner in which Amendments came to be introduced to in the Bill.
    MR. CHANNINGsaid, be would discuss that portion of the clause in which the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol was embodied. Of course, it might be contended by the right hon. Gentleman that his intention was to provide for the case in which the existing rate might have been below the actual rate of 1892, and that in that case the Amendment would operate in favour of the trader, and that he would not be called upon to pay into Court the whole of the rate liable to be charged above the rate of 1892, but only to pay the rate which was actually being levied upon him and demanded from him by the Company immediately before the increase was made. So far that might be an advantage to the trader, but the words were liable to a very different construction and to a very different operation. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would take this opportunity of further explaining the intention of this Amendment, in which case the time of the House would be usefully occupied. The difficulty, he would point out, was this. They might have an increase made upon the rate of 1892. That increase might have been left uncontested by the trader. For various reasons he might not have taken some of the increases made last year before the Railway Commissioners under the powers of this Bill. In that case, if the Railway Company saw their way to make a still further increase on any class of traffic, under the wording of the clause as it at present stood, it was perfectly plain that the trader would be called upon to pay into Court, not the old rate of 1892, but the whole of the increase which, for various reasons, he might not have seen his way to challenge in the interval. The Railway Companies would, in fact, by the form of words now introduced into the clause, have a sanction for the increased rate as well as the rate of 1892. He did say that the Bill was objectionable enough already to the traders all over the country because of its fundamental principle, which introduced a sanction of the rates of 1892, and this mischief would be still more aggravated for the traders, if the Railway Companies were enabled, as the words might enable them, in case one of the increases of their rates was not immediately challenged under this Bill
    790
    before the Railway Commissioners, and they made any further increases to secure, by a side wind, this result: that not only the rate of 1892, but the whole of the increase upon the rate of 1892 should be made unassailable and unquestionable before the Railway Commissioners. It was perfectly true that the Amendment only affected money paid into Court, but that might create a presumption against the jurisdiction of the Commissioners over the increase on the rate of 1892. Unless the explanation of those words was satisfactory, or unless words could be introduced which would remove and make wholly impossible the difficulty which had occurred to him in this connection, and which might operate very prejudicially to the traders in the future, he should feel it his duty to offer the most strenuous opposition to the further passing of this Bill.
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACH ()said, he had no wish to go into the general question. They might discuss it that night and the next day also before they arrived at any common understanding or conclusion with regard to it. He had the honour to be a Member of the Committee which made the Report on which this Bill was founded. He concurred in that Report, which was supported by a very considerable majority, in favour of a limited discretion to the Railway Commissioners in dealing with the cases of increases of rates, and not throwing open all rates to question in the Railway Commissioners Court. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire and other hon. Members had questioned certain words which, at his suggestion, were inserted in the clause late on Friday night. He should have been very glad if he could have placed them on the Paper so that hon. Members might have seen them. But the fact was, that his own attention was only called to the wording of the Amendment which was to be moved by his right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University on Friday afternoon, so that he had no opportunity of doing so. What appeared to him, and what he believed also appeared to right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and to the experienced permanent officials of the Board of Trade, was that as the Amendment of his right hon. Friend stood it only had regard to those cases in which the Rail-

    791
    way Companies had, as had often been complained, raised the rates of 1892 on the 1st of January, 1893, and that those who framed the Amendment had omitted to consider those cases of future increases which, of course, if made, would be subject to redress by the Court of the Railway Commissioners. Of course, as the hon. Member for Northamptonshire had just observed, supposing a rate existed at a certain point on the 31st December, 1892, was then raised on the 1st of January, 1893, and was subsequently lowered after that time, and then raised again to a point below that of the 31st of December, 1892, as the clause stood the traders would have been seriously damnified. Again, only a portion of their rates were raised by the Railway Companies on the 1st of January, 1893, when they endeavoured, as the Committee reported, to recoup themselves for certain diminutions which the Act of 1888 made in their power to charge in some matters by raising their previous rates on other articles on which they had the power to do so. But with regard to those rates which were not raised on the 1st of January, 1893? Supposing the Railway Companies were to lower them? No one would complain; but if, after they had lowered any of those rates, they afterwards tried to increase them, then it would be obviously unfair to call upon the trader, before his appeal could be heard, to pay into Court the rate calculated on a higher basis than that which existed at the time of the increase being made against which he appealed. That was the object of his Amendment. He believed the words as inserted in the clause carried out that without doing any harm to the trader at all. But he quite admitted the question was one of a complicated and difficult nature; and so far as he was personally concerned, if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade should be advised by those who were very well qualified to advise him that any alteration of those words would be fairer to the traders or fairer to both parties, he certainly should raise no objection to them being altered. His sole object in moving the Amendment was to make the proposal of his right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University, who he thought was very capable of taking care of the Railway
    792
    Companies, more favourable to the traders than it was in the shape he moved it. He believed it carried that out; but if it did not, it was perfectly open to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to alter it later on.
    MR. CHANNING: I would like to ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol whether words to this effect would meet his view?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is competent to do that.
    MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN ()said, he only wished to say, on behalf of the agricultural interest, that he did not think the agriculturists of this country were of opinion that this Bill was much worthy of their acceptance. They could not regard it as a complete, or equitable, or fair settlement of this question, and they would undoubtedly look to future legislation to remove those grievances and inequalities which they thought would still exist.
    MR. MUNDELLA ()said, he was responsible for the introduction of this Bill, and his name was on the back of it. He believed that the changes that had been made in the Bill, on the whole, made it a very fair and reasonable settlement of the question. The Bill now fairly carried out the recommendations of the Committee. He had looked at it very carefully, and he could not find that it in any way fell short of the Committee's Report. The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Dodd) had said that it failed to reconstitute the Railway Commission. They all knew why it did not deal with that question. The Committee itself made no recommendations on that subject, but there was no doubt that the Commission must be reconstituted. It was not satisfactory. He did not think it was satisfactory to gentlemen sitting on either side of the House, or to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol himself. When the first opportunity presented itself for the reconstitution of the Commission there was no doubt it would be so constituted as to make the

    793
    Commission more acceptable to the traders and the community generally. But, with respect to the action of the Railway Companies in raising the rates, no one had suffered more than he had, and he resented their action as much as the hon. Members (Mr. channing and Mr. Dodd), but ho believed that, so far from this being a mere stop-gap Bill, it was a much more important Bill than Mr. Channing considered. If it was a stop-gap Bill, the gap it occupied was a very important one, and it was a gap that the traders themselves wanted stopping. The Board of Trade had received innumerable letters, memorials, and deputations urging that the increase made on the rates of 1892 should be subject to revision; and he believed it to be a great satisfaction to the traders to have that question finally settled. He could not recall an instance in which they demanded that the whole rates should be opened. What they desired was that the rates which were raised by the action of the Railway Companies—he might say the capricious action of the Railway Companies — on the 1st of January, 1893, should be subject to revision, and that they should be reduced. He believed that, so far from the Board of Trade being subject to the pressure of the Railway Companies, great pressure had been brought to bear by the Board of Trade on the Railway Companies themselves. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bryce) had carried through the negotiations with great firmness, and he thought the Railway Companies had really behaved at the last moment with considerable moderation and reasonableness. He believed the Bill, with the Amendments in it, would give satisfaction to the trading community; and with the operation of Section 31, which was constantly in operation and constantly doing excellent work in reducing typical rates, he believed the Bill offered a very important opening for the revision of any unreasonable rates to which the traders might be subjected.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BRYCE,)said, that with reference to what had fallen from several hon. Members with regard to the Amendment settled on Friday night, he desired to assure the hon. Member for Northamptonshire and
    794
    the hon. Member for Essex that what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol was perfectly accurate. This Amendment was introduced in the interests of traders, because it was plain that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University as it stood did not deal with one case in which they might be prejudiced. He did not think the Amendment was inequitable to the trader in the way in which his hon. Friends had pointed out, and he could assure them that it in no way affected the right of the traders, which was safeguarded under Clause 1. He would like to assure his hon. Friends that the words accepted on Friday had been very carefully considered; but he would, with those who advised him in this matter, carefully consider whether the danger which they apprehended could possibly arise; and if they were of opinion that it would arise, he would see what words could be introduced to guard against it. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire was entirely mistaken if he thought the Board of Trade had been influenced in this matter by the Railway Companies. On the contrary, the Board of Trade had put a great deal of pressure on the Railway Companies. The reason ho pressed the Bill, which was not all ho could desire himself, was because he believed that in the circumstances it was the most that could be effected, and that if it passed it would give a very substantial advantage to traders of which in the months to come they would reap the advantage.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he was surprised at the remark of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield that the traders would be quite satisfied to have the rates of 1892 fixed.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that what he said was, that all the complaints which reached him when he was at the Board of Trade was with reference to the excesses upon the rates of 1892, and that the applications to the Board of Trade were that those excesses should be reduced—not that the whole of the rates should be re-opened.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he must remind the right hon. Gentleman that at the deputation which waited upon him in one of the Committee Rooms, great dissatisfaction was felt that the Bill was

    795
    so narrow in its scope, and that at that time he tried to pacify some of those who felt so strongly upon the matter by telling them that the Bill was so framed that it would re-open the whole question. He did lead them to expect that where the rate had been increased after 1892 it would be open to the traders to open the whole rate on the ground of reasonableness. They were certainly led to expect, when the Bill was brought in, that it would be open, under its provisions, to raise the question of the reasonableness of the whole rate.
    THE PRESIDENT or THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. SHAW-LEFEVRE,)said that, as Chairman of the Committee that investigated this matter, and as the one who drew up the Report, he desired to say a few words. He desired to point out that, the whole of the evidence was confined to the raising of the rates since 1892. He believed he was right in saying that there was no evidence whatever brought before the Committee in respect of any other rates than those that had been raised at the beginning of 1893. He thought it might be well worthy of consideration at some future time whether the operation of this Bill might not be extended. If it were extended, it must be after full inquiry as to the rates which existed other than those which were raised in 1893. But certainly it would not have been right for the Committee to have reported with regard to rates in respect of which there was no evidence before them, and which were outside the scope of the Reference. He was bound to say that the evidence in regard to those rates was not by any means complete.
    MR. CHANNING ()said, he thought his right hon. Friend must have forgotten the last words of the Reference to the Committee, which gave them a perfect right to go into the whole question of the revision of rates.
    MR. J. E. ELLIS ()appealed very strongly to the President of the Board of Trade to scrutinise closely the words of the Amendment, because some words had crept into the Act of 1888 which had had an entirely unanticipated effect as against the traders and which had proved most dangerous to the interests of the traders. It must be borne in mind that the Rail-
    796
    way Companies bad the most experienced legal assistance, and knew the effect of every word they suggested to the President of the Board of Trade. He believed the professional advisers at the back of the Railway Companies were far superior to those at the back of the President of the Board of Trade, and he thought, therefore, that the Government would do well to be careful as to the words they adopted. He regretted very much that the Government had thought fit to proceed with this Bill at this period of the Session, as it was a most important measure.
    MR. BURNIE ()said, the Members of the Committee had consisted largely of Railway Directors and friends of Railway Companies, and yet an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir B. Samuelson) was accepted, and this clause was inserted, commencing, "The minimum the trader is entitled to." It was upon this provision that Parliament was basing its legislation. He did not agree in the censure that had been passed upon the Report of the Committee. He regarded it as an excellent historical Report, although he thought that the recommendations it contained were weak.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause 2.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    MR. TOMLINSON ()said, no doubt in some cases, perhaps in many, it might be an advantage to traders not to have the question of costs determined by the tribunal, but at the same time he regarded the provision as being a two-edged sword. He thought it an extraordinary thing that the tribunal could not be trusted to deal with the question of costs.
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACH (): I do not think my hon. Friend is fair, if he will allow me to say so, in suggesting that this clause shows any want of confidence on the part of the Select Committee in the tribunal. That was not the point at all. It was alleged, and I believe it was very strongly felt by the traders, that, whereas the Railway Companies could afford to retain the services of the very best solicitors and barristers at the highest

    797
    possible fees, the private litigant in many eases could not do so, and it was regarded as hard that such a litigant should have to pay the costs of the Railway Companies on a high scale if the decision happened to be against him. The Committee therefore considered that the rule which, I believe, obtains in our Committee Rooms upstairs should be enforced in this case. Whatever may be thought of the Railway Commissioners as a tribunal, I may say that they cheerfully accepted this proposal, and in fact approved of it in their evidence before the Committee.
    MR. DODD ()said, he considered the clause to be mistaken, inasmuch as it meant that if a complainant was ever so right, he could not have his costs. He preferred the ordinary English rule, that the man who won got his costs, while the man who lost had to pay them. The Report of the Committee, he thought, made it plain that the question of the composition of the tribunal, the Railway Commission, must shortly be considered, and that showed that the clause dealt only with a very provisional state of circumstances, and that the whole of this question would before long come again before Parliament. Under these circumstances, having expressed his own opinion on the clause, he would not vote against it.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause 3 agreed to.
    MR. BRYCE MR. BRYCE moved to insert the following clause:—
    (Amendment of 36 & 37 Vic., c. 48, s. 14, as to division of rates.)
    The provisions of Section 11 of The Regulation of Railways Act, 1873, with respect to the power to make orders and failure to comply with such orders, shall extend to any rates entered in books kept in pursuance of Section 31 of The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888."
    He said, this clause was necessary owing to an omission from the Act of 1888, and it had been accepted by both parties.
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. CHANNINGasked whether the clause would cover the objects of the clauses which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton with regard to the analysis of rates, private sidings, and so on?
    MR. BRYCEsaid, it would. The clause was really based upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. It had been very carefully considered by the Government draftsman, and by the representatives of the traders, who were agreed that it carried out the object of the hon. Member's Amendment.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he thought the clause would furnish a very valuable amendment in the law.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause added to the Bill.
    MR. CHANNING*MR. CHANNING moved the insertion of the following new clause:—
    (Duration of Act.)
    "This Act shall remain in force till the 1st day of January, 1898, and no longer."
    He said, if it were thought desirable that the measure should continue in operation after the period named it might be included in the Temporary Bills Act afterwards.
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. STUART-WORTLEY ()said, his right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University (Mr. D. Plunket) had asked him to say that he hoped the Government would not accept this clause. It was not one of those proposals upon which the Railway Companies looked with favour, and he (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) hoped the House would limit itself to those Amendments which had been agreed to by both parties.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he must, refuse to accept the Amendment, not because the Railway Companies objected to it, but because he thought on its merits it was not a desirable proposal. He thought that the Debates that had taken place, and the opinions that had been expressed by the traders, would be a sufficient

    799
    record of the fact that they had not accepted this Bill as one that was satisfactory to them. As to the suggestion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Channing), he did not think it advisable to overload the Expiring Laws Continuance Act with Bills.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. BRYCE MR. BRYCE moved the following new clause:—
    (Rebate on sidings rates.)
    "Whenever merchandise is received or delivered by a Railway Company at any siding or branch railway not belonging to the Company and a dispute arises between the Railway Company and the consignor of consignee of such merchandise as to any allowance or rebate to be made from the rates charged to such consignor or consignee in respect that the Railway Company does not provide station accommodation or perform terminal services, the Railway and Canal Commissioners shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine such dispute, and to determine what, if any, is a reasonable and just allowance or rebate."
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. TOMLINSONasked for an explanation of the differences between the proposed new clause and one on the same subject which had been placed upon the Paper by the hon. Member for Leicester (Sir J. Whitehead). He wished to know whether the words "at any siding or branch railway not belonging to the Company" were not rather ambiguous? Supposing a siding or a branch railway were leased by a Railway Company, would that be regarded as not belonging to the Railway Company?
    MR. BRYCE: The differences between the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Leicester (Sir J. Whitehead) and my own are only differences of drafting. The words "not belonging to the Company" have been used in other Acts relating to this matter, and would cover the case of a siding that was leased—that is to say, that such a siding would not be excluded. The clause has been accepted by those who represent the traders, and I think the form in which it has been drafted will be found to be the most convenient and the safest.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause added to the Bill.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 356.]

  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.—(No. 10.)

    COMMITTEE. [Progress, 30th April.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    SIR J. PEASE ()*SIR J. PEASE (Durham, Barnard Castle) moved that the Chairman do leave the Chair. He remarked that this Bill had come on the 13th of August, at a period of the Session when the House was, in his humble opinion, unable properly to Weigh the very serious matters that were contained in it. He was thoroughly well acquainted with the subject, and he felt a great dread of legislation of this most important character being brought forward at a time when so many Members had paired and gone away, being unable to believe that Her Majesty's Government would afford facilities on the 13th of August for a Bill of this very great and important character. He was certain that the adoption of the Bill would add very largely to the cost of the article produced by the miners, and the result would be to increase the depression of trade, which they all so much deplored. He saw in the Lancashire newspapers statements to the effect that mills in that county were lying idle, no there and there but in groups; and he knew that in his own district ironworks were being stopped because of the competition with Belgium and other countries. Under these circumstances, he asked whether it would be wise to proceed with a Bill which, in his belief, must add to the cost of production? Another grave and important question for consideration was what effect the Bill would have upon the employment of workmen in this country. He believed its effect would be very much to diminish the number of men employed. Those who were thus thrown out of work would go into other districts which were already over-populated, and further reduce wages.
    MR. P. STANHOPE ()rising to Order, asked whether the hon. Baronet had a right to make a Second Reading speech on the Bill?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet is not entitled to discuss the Bill at all at this moment. He must confine himself to reasons for his Motion.
    SIR J. PEASEsaid, he was endeavouring to give reasons for reporting Progress. The Bill would have a much greater effect upon the country than the Budget of the present year; and when he remembered how many Members had paired and saw how thin the House was, he contended that they were not in a position to give all the attention they ought to give to a subject of such vast importance. The Government had taken the unusual course of granting facilities for a private Members' Bill, whilst they were leaving over for another year Bills which had been announced in the Queen's Speech, and which were of a much more national character than that now before the Committee. It was a most unusual course for the House at so late a period of the Session to take up a Bill of so important a character, and especially one that would interfere with the rights of adult labour.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Sir J. Pease.)
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): Of course, I cannot go into the earlier topics dealt with by my hon. Friend in his speech, as they really did seem to me to be arguments against the Second Reading of the Bill. At an earlier period of the Session, when the House was very full, the principle of the Bill was affirmed by a very large majority, and, therefore, I think we can put aside all the earlier reasons given by my hon. Friend for having made this Motion. I would ask the Committee whether it is not the desire of the great majority of Members to deal with this Bill, and to deal with it now? If the Committee is not of that opinion it has the opportunity of expressing its view upon the Motion of my hon. Friend. Everybody has had full notice for weeks past that this Bill was to be dealt with, and there has throughout the country been a full expectation that it would be considered today. I think it would be a matter of great surprise and disappointment to the many thousands of people, on whose behalf my hon. Friend professes to
    802
    speak, if it were found that the House of Commons was not willing to entertain the question to-day. Miners have for a long time looked forward to the discussion of this question, and would resent it if the Committee now determined not to consider a matter which has so long been pending. Those are the reasons why I for my part cannot assent to the Motion of my hon. Friend; but of course it is for the Committee to say whether or not they desire to proceed with this stage of the Bill.
    MR. GEBALD BALFOUR ()said, he thought the Motion of the hon. Baronet was fully justified by the circumstances of the case. It appeared to him to be little short of a public scandal that a Bill of that important kind—not being a Government Bill—should receive facilities for discussion from the Government at a time so late in the Session, when practically the only proper business which remained to be got through was the business of Supply—a time moreover when probably more than half the Members of the House were paired and away. The hon. Baronet had emphasised, as he was justified in doing, the importance of the Bill, which introduced a most novel principle and was brought forward in the interests of a section of the community—indeed, he might say of a portion of a section of the community, although it must profoundly affect the interests of the community generally. The Bill dealt with an industry which numbered 600,000 workers—an industry which provided a cheap and abundant supply of fuel without which the great industries of the I country, on which their prosperity depended, could not be carried on. He would like to ask what discussion the Bill had received up to the present time? The only discussion which it had received was the extremely imperfect and perfunctory discussion of two Wednesday afternoon Debates. This showed that the Bill had not received mature consideration. He did not hesitate to say that a Bill of this extreme importance and far - reaching character should not receive facilities under any circumstances unless the Government of the day not only ensured that it should have mature consideration, but were prepared to take the responsibility upon themselves of making it a Govern-

    803
    ment measure. But he contended above all that facilities ought not to be given to such a measure at a time like this. It was notorious that pairs were made on Party grounds. What did that mean? It meant that at the present time the House did not fairly represent the balance of opinion in regard to that Bill, or any Bill which was not drawn upon Party lines. These considerations seemed so obvious that one could not help asking what were the reasons which had induced the Government to give this Bill exceptional facilities? When the Leader of the House announced that it was his intention to give this Bill exceptional facilities, he offered to the House two reasons for doing so. One of these was that the supporters of the Bill had obtained an exceptionally favourable place by means of the ballot, and the other was that the Bill raised important questions which it was desirable should be submitted this year to the judgment of the House of Commons. If the first of those reasons was to prevail and form a standing precedent for future occasions it was clear that every year there would be half-a-dozen Bills or more which it would be necessary for the Government to add to their programme or to give exceptional facilities for, even at the end of the Session. As to the second reason—that the Bill raised important issues which should be decided by the House of Commons—that was an argument against giving facilities, not in favour of doing so. If a Bill raised important considerations it was all the more important that it should be brought forward at a time when the House could fairly debate those important considerations. If it was desirable that the judgment of the House should be expressed upon it, let it be expressed at a time when the House fairly represented the division of opinion in the House upon the question at issue. He thought it was impossible to doubt that the real reason why the Government had given these exceptional facilities to the Bill was that the noble Lord who was at the head of the Government, early in the year, at a time when the Government seemed to have given very little consideration to the Bill, and when lie must have been very imperfectly acquainted with the views of his colleagues upon the Bill, gave a promise that the measure should receive excep-
    804
    tional facilities. He, of course, understood the difficulty of the position in which the Government was placed owing to those pledges given by its head. But the Government had duties to the public and to the House as well as to a section of its followers, and he thought the interests of the public and the House demanded that the Bill should not be discussed at that late period of the Session. He could hardly expect the Members of the Government themselves to support the Motion, but he thought they might fairly ask that they should not influence their followers to vote against it, and that if the Motion were carried they should agree that the Bill should no longer be proceeded with.
    SIR J. JOICEY ()said, the position of the Bill was that it had passed the Second Reading by a considerable majority. It was brought in by a private Member, and was in the category of private Members' Bills. Were there no other Bills of the same character—no other Bills which had passed that House by large majorities and were as much entitled to the special consideration of Her Majesty's Government, if not more entitled? For instance, there was the Rating of Machinery Bill, which had been approved in that House by large majorities for two or three years, which was not a Party measure, and which, in his judgment, had far more claim upon the Government than had the measure before the House. He could not quite understand the position the Government had taken up on the Bill. He had been under the impression that the Government took the whole time of the House in order to push forward the measures to which the Party was pledged, but instead of carrying those measures into effect the Government had taken the Bill selected especially from all the Bills which had been passed by large majorities and had given it preference, not only over those Bills, but over their own measures. As a supporter of the Government, and as representing a district which had returned a large number of supporters of the Government to the House, he protested against their present action. He thought they had treated with but scant courtesy the Counties of Durham and Northumberland, which had for years sent an almost unbroken phalanx of Members to represent the Liberal cause

    805
    in Parliament. If the Bill had been made a Government measure Members would have known upon whose shoulders rested the responsibility of pressing it forward; but the Government seemed, for some reason or other, not to have had the courage of their convictions. He could not see why they should not have taken the responsibility of the Bill upon their own shoulders; but what had they actually done? Not only had they given special facilities for the consideration of the measure, but they had issued a four or five-line Whip for the Second Reading, and that morning again a five-line Whip had been sent out and special attention called to the Bill. He regarded the discussion of the Second Reading as absolutely inadequate to the importance of the subject. He himself, as representing a constituency deeply interested in the question, was specially anxious to give his views upon it on that occasion, and rose practically every time there was an opportunity, but he failed to catch the Speaker's eye, and in the end the Debate was closured. He strongly supported his hon. Friend's Motion, and he hoped the Government would see their way to agree to the proposal he had made.
    MR. LEGH ()said, the hon. Baronet who had moved to report Progress and the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken were such faithful supporters of the Government that he was convinced they would not have taken such a course as they had adopted had they not felt bound to do so. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself had only an hour before expressed the opinion that the inscription, "Abandon hope all ye who introduce Bills into this House in the middle of August," ought to be put up. What discussion had they actually had upon the Bill? Two miserable Wednesday afternoons in an attenuated and listless House; scarcely anyone speaking for more than 10 minutes, most of the people best worth hearing not speaking at all, and the discussion finally terminated by the closure. They had not heard the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Leader of the Opposition upon the Bill; above all, they had not heard the opinion of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. He was specially anxious to know what
    806
    that right hon. Gentleman had to say, as well as the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs and the Under Secretary for the Home Department? As a good Party man he was ready to believe most things of the present Government, but he could never have believed that they would have assisted to rush such an important Bill through the House at that period of the Session. Apparently many other people were of the same opinion, for he noticed that of the gentlemen who had some of the most important Amendments down on the Paper, many were absent. Attention had been called to the fact that there were about 200 Sessional pairs, so that the Bill was apparently going to be decided by a House of about 100 Members. It must be borne in mind that the Bill was not only opposed from the Opposition side of the House, it was still more violently opposed by many of the Government's own supporters, and yet they were told that it was going to be rushed through the House in a couple of days. He had no hesitation in characterising the action of the Government as a Parliamentary outrage of the worst possible description.
    MR. J. WILSON ()suggested to the hon. Baronet who had moved that Progress be reported that, after the expression of opinion which had been evoked, he might fairly withdraw his proposition and let the Committee proceed with the discussion of the Bill. With regard to the action of the Government respecting the measure, he might say that as one of the least of the Liberal Party, he had been, in and out of the House, one of its consistent supporters. He had done his best to assist in the return to that House of Members pledged to support Liberal measures, because he believed those measures were best for the class to which they belonged; but during the present Session they had seen the most complete setting aside of any recognition of the views he and those from the North had expressed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that sufficient time had been given to the House to allow Members to prepare themselves for that Debate. From time to time, he, with others, had put questions to the right hon. Gentleman, asking him to name the date on which the Debate would be taken,

    807
    and to state, as nearly as he could, the amount of time which would be allotted to it. But there had been the most constant evasion of the questions. He had done his very best to ascertain that they might be prepared, but he ventured to say, looking at the pairs which had been made, as pairs are continually made, on Party lines, that the House was not in a state in which a question like that could be properly discussed. It seemed to him that the Government had taken upon their shoulders a burden they shrank from carrying. If they were so enamoured of the measure, why had they not made it a Government measure—why were they going to allow it to pass, with their support, as a private Member's Bill. He knew that he was expressing the opinion of a large number of working men outside when he said the opponents of the Bill had not been treated in the fairest of manners, but he would, nevertheless, advise the hon. Baronet that, having obtained that expression of opinion from both sides of the House, he should allow the Committee to proceed with the discussion of the Bill.
    SIR. S. POWELL ()said, he had the honour of representing a large mining constituency—indeed, he believed the majority of those on the Register were employed more or less in mining occupations. He had been in communication with a large number of his constituents, and he felt that it would be a grave injustice to them if the Bill were forced through the House of Commons at the present time. The feeling against the Bill was most earnest and emphatic on the part of a large proportion of the mining population—a proportion so large that, though a minority, it was entitled to the utmost respect—and he felt that the great questions involved in the measure could not receive due consideration so late in the month of August. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had reminded the Committee that the Second Reading was carried by a large majority; but the Bill was essentially a measure of detail, and many Members who supported the Second Reading were anxious to see carried important Amendments which would, in their opinion, make the Bill more effective. The discussion of those Amendments must occupy some time. The interests involved were gigantic, overwhelming, almost overpowering;
    808
    and he felt that the House would not be doing justice to those affected—employers, employed, or the country at large—if they proceeded further with the measure that day. For it was not only the employers and employed in the mining districts who were concerned in the matter—there was the great body of consumers; and he was certain that the passing of the Bill would enhance the price of coal.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think that is quite the question under consideration.
    SIR F. S. POWELL: I only mentioned it as an illustration of the gigantic interests involved in this question, and, therefore, as a reason why the Bill should not be discussed at this period of the Session. I am glad to have had an opportunity of making this protest, and I know I shall have the thanks of many in the borough I represent.
    MR. J. A. PEASE ()said, the Leader of the House had stated that he proposed to resist the Motion, on the ground that the principle of the Bill had been affirmed by very large majorities of the House. He had taken the trouble to analyse the figures of the Divisions, and he found that in May, 1893, the number of Members who took part was 484, and that the majority was 78. In April, 1894, this year, 479 Members took part, and the majority was 87. Of the Members who voted in the Aye Lobby last year 45 were absent this year, and 63 who voted in the No Lobby last year were absent this year. One changed his vote from Aye to No. Four, owing to extreme pressure from the Government, changed their votes from No to Aye. Therefore, the total of those in favour of the Bill was 326, and of those in opposition to the Bill wore 257. Those who faced both ways were five, and those who were absent altogether were 82. The majority of those who voted was therefore 69, and that did not equal the number of those who abstained from voting. He thought that if a Bill of this importance was to be proceeded with, it should only be with the support of the majority of the whole House. This had never been the case with respect to this measure, and was another reason why they should not now legislate in a hurry. In the majorities to which he had referred the Nationalist vote

    809
    of 64 Members went solidly in favour of the Second Reading. He hoped that that solidity would not be maintained in any future Divisions on the Bill, for though the Nationalist Members, in voting on the Second Reading, might have believed that they were supporting a democratic principle they were not voting for the advantage of the whole community. Another reason why the Bill should not go at that late period was that the Labour Commission Report had been issued since the Second Reading Division. That Report should have due weight attached to it in the consideration of such a measure as this. But that was an advantage which they could not have at this late period of the Session.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS ()said, he wished to join in an appeal to the hon. Baronet not to press his Motion to a Division. A very timely protest had been entered against the action of the Government in specially facilitating the Bill, but, that protest having been entered, he did not think anything further would be gained by persisting in the Motion, and if a Division were taken upon it a wrong impression might be created. At the same time, he fully agreed with the strictures which the hon. Baronet had passed upon the shilly-shally attitude of the Government, who, he thought, had not even treated their own supporters fairly, and whose action in no way redounded to their credit. Not only had no adequate discussion taken place so far, but the country had had no opportunity of expressing an opinion either on the Bill itself or on the proposals which would be made to amend it. The Bill was not in the Government programme; it was not in the Newcastle programme. More than that, it was deliberately excluded, after full consideration, from that programme, on which, practically, the Government were returned to power. Several reasons had been given for the curious attitude of the Government, but he did not know that it was desirable to mince matters, and his own belief was that that attitude was due to the fact that several right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Ministerial Bench represented constituencies in which the mining vote was too important to be lightly treated. At the same time, the Prime Minister had given a distinct
    810
    pledge that the Bill should be considered in Committee, and he would be sorry to be a party to causing the Government to break any pledges; therefore, he suggested that the Bill should be proceeded with. It was not properly discussed on the Second Reading, and that was all the more reason why they should now take the earliest opportunity of considering it fully, so that those who did not fully approve of it might point out in what respects they considered that it failed most seriously.
    MR. TOMLINSON ()said, he desired to say a word or two on behalf of a class whose interest had not been taken into view. He represented a constituency which was not directly con nected with the mining industry, yet depended for its livelihood on the regular and cheap supply of coal, and all the great industries conducted in his part of the country would suffer seriously if that supply were to be diminished, as certainly he thought it would diminish if this Bill passed into law. In the textile and in the iron trades the depression was now very great, many concerns were carried of without profit, and if they were subjected to a considerable additional charge for coal it would be difficult to carry on business at all. The Bill would operate very seriously in that direction if instead of eight hours actual work in mines per day the work was reduced to 6 or 5¾ hours, which would be the actual result. The Representatives of other than mining districts had not, perhaps, given attention to the details of the Bill, and many of them had paired and were away from the House. The discussion would suffer from their absence just at the time when they could make themselves acquainted with the real working of the measure. He protested strongly against the manner in which the Bill was being pushed through.
    MR. FENWICK ()hoped that the hon. Baronet would not put the Committee to the inconvenience of a Division, but would yield to the appeal made to him, and withdraw the Motion to report Progress. He quite agreed that a protest against the action of the Government was called for and in stronger terms than had been used. In their own opinion the Government had made an adroit move, but, in his opinion, their conduct had

    811
    been neither candid or courageous. This conduct would be noted out of doors and public attention would be secured by this Motion, which however might now be withdrawn and the discussion of the Bill allowed to proceed.
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACH ()had no desire to comment on the action of the Government in regard to the Bill, though he could say a good deal about that. It was quite unnecessary, after the strong and cutting language which had been heard from supporters of the Government representing districts where the Government had hitherto appeared to enjoy a considerable amount of popularity. If this conduct should decrease that popularity, the Opposition could afford to look on the result with some complacency. To his mind it appeared quite indefensible that at the very moment when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had announced that it was impossible, looking at the length of the Session and the exhaustion of the House, for the Government to proceed with any single Bill of their own if it was in the slightest degree opposed, that they should ask the House to proceed with as thorny and difficult a question as could be presented to the House of Commons. But his object in rising was solely to add his request to others that had been made that the hon. Baronet would not press his Motion to a Division. Enough had been said to make sufficient protest on the part of Members against the conduct of the Government in regard to this matter, but for himself he would say that whatever might be the view taken of this Bill as the House was sitting this evening there would surely be a desire to proceed with some business or other. But if Members would look at the Order Paper having regard to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the fact that effective Supply had not been put down, it would be seen that if this Motion were carried in about 10 minutes the House would adjourn. He therefore expressed the hope that the hon. Baronet would not press the Motion to a Division, but having made his protest would allow the consideration of the Bill to proceed.
    MR. RATHBONE ()had some hesitation in speaking on this subject, but it did seem to him a very dangerous thing for the House in
    812
    its present state and under the circumstances of the time to enter upon a policy entirely novel, contrary to all precedent, and opposed to English character and traditions. The House, which was unable to discharge its own business satisfactorily, was now going to regulate the details of labour for the whole of the country in all its varied forms. ["No, no!"] That was so, because when this new departure was understood in the country it was evident where it would lead. In other trades the question would be raised, "If miners have this restriction of hours why should not we?" The consequences would be very injurious. He was interested neither on behalf of employers or employed in this controversy, but speaking in the interest of employés generally he believed that this step would have the effect of endangering, and if proceeded with would largely decrease the employment and means of subsistence of large masses of our population. We were entering upon the application of a principle which statesmen of the past had considered most dangerous and objectionable. Perhaps the man who had done more than any other to promote the shortening of hours of labour was the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Mather), and his testimony was emphatic on this question that a rigid law passed by members of an Imperial Legislature when votes were given as required for Party reasons could never provide a safe remedy for the difficulties that arose in connection with hours of labour. This question was now brought on in a House that could not be said to represent the opinion of the country, while so many Members were absent, having no expectation that this business would be taken, and who had not a chance of returning the pledges they had given on the subject.
    SIR J. PEASErose in response to the invitations given to ask leave to withdraw his Motion, which had served its purpose as a humble though strong protest on his part, strongly emphasised by others, against the conduct of the Government in bringing forward a Bill promoted by private Members on the 13th of August with the House in its present condition.
    MR. ABRAHAMobjected to the Motion being withdrawn now that it had served its purpose. If there was any

    813
    validity in the reason alleged against proceeding with the Bill that there were too few Members present, let that allegation be subjected to the test of Division. Then would be shown where was the desire to have a fair discussion and where the intention to merely obstruct the Bill and prevent its consideration.
    MR. WOOTTON ISAACSONwas very sorry the hon. Baronet was going to withdraw his protest, because a Division would have shown the country the extent and character of the support given to the Government on bringing forward so important a Bill at this period of the Session. He thought the hon. Baronet by his Motion had offered the Government a golden bridge to enable them to retire from their opposition and abandon the Bill. After the remarks of the hon. Member for Rhondda he might be allowed to express the opinion that the Bill would do a vast amount of harm to every colliery in South Wales. It was not an Eight Hours' Bill at all, it was a Seven Hours' Bill, and its effect would be to reduce work and to risk the sacrifice of life. He regretted the hon. Baronet withdrew his Motion, for it would have been well for the country to have seen, even in such a thin House, how strong was the condemnation of the conduct of the Government.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. D. A. THOMASsaid, if be was in Order he would, even at the risk of censure from his hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, suggest that this clause be postponed to a later period of the discussion. He would not press this to a Division if there was very serious objection to it, but certainly as the clause stood it was a misnomer and misleading.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 1 be postponed."—(Mr. D. A. Thomas.)
    MR. ROBYhoped the hon. Member would not press this. It was a matter of small importance, but "Hours of Work" seemed the natural terms in which to describe the Bill.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. J. A. PEASEasked, would it be in Order to alter the title of the Bill, which at the present did not make sense?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Not now; that will come last.
    MR. D. A. THOMASsaid, the clause as it stood was a misnomer and altogether misleading. It was not for "Hours of Work"; it was to regulate the hours from surface to surface, from bank to bank, or hours underground, and there fore he moved to omit the words "of work." He did not think it could be contended they were hours of work; in fact, the time of actual work would only be some six and a-half hours, the remainder of the eight hours being occupied in going down and up again, in getting to and coming from the place of actual work.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 7, to leave out the words "of work."—(Mr. D. A. Thomas.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 2.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEY)said, the acceptance JL the Amendment of which he had given notice, and which would speak for itself, would not necessarily be fatal to the Bill even in the opinion of the promoters. It was asserted that under the very peculiar circumstances the legislation the House was entering upon should be given an experimental character and less of a cast-iron form. There was a very strong precedent for his proposal in the Employers' Liability Act of 1880, to which a duration of seven years was given. At that time the fears of those who objected to the Bill were such as induced many to believe that the effect of the Bill would be bad.
    MR. ROBY,interrupting, expressed his willingness to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 9, before the words "a person," to insert the words "until the thirty-first of December one thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine."—(Mr. Stuart-Wortley.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. TOMLINSONdesired to substitute "1897" for "1899." The Act would be experimental, and for the purpose of experience of its operation a

    815
    couple of years would be an ample period and much to be preferred to five years. Of course, what was contemplated was the possibility or probability that long before the end of 1899 was reached the Act in its operation would be found so disadvantageous to the workmen subject to it, that there would be a strong desire for its repeal. That such would be the case he was convinced, for in many parts of the country it would be impossible to carry on colliery work under these restrictions. The shorter period was therefore desirable.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "ninety-nine," and insert the words "ninety-seven."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
    MR. WOODSregretted that the hon. Member should have intervened with this after the Amendment had been so promptly accepted. He hoped it would not be persisted in, but that the Committee might be allowed to proceed to the discussion of more important Amendments.
    MR. LEGHthought that a period of seven years was too long for the experiment. [Several hon. MEMBERS: "Five years."] Five years was too long for experimental purposes, and personally he should much prefer the shorter period. The Bill might have all the advantages its promoters claimed for it; it might turn out to be a benefit to everybody concerned, but on the other hand there must not be left out of consideration the possibility of its being unsuccessful. If he were allowed to do so he would like to refer to reasons which led him to express some doubt as to the effect the Bill would have on our foreign coal trade.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think that to do that would be in Order.
    MR. LEGHsaid, he was about to quote from the evidence given before the Labour Commission as to the desirability of making the Bill an experiment only. The Mining Federation did not give evidence before that Commision, but witnesses who were in favour of the Bill did. There was Mr. David Morgan, agent for the Aberdare and Merthyr
    816
    Mining Association, who in reply to Questions 3,942 and following, approved of the proposal for an eight hours' day. When asked as to his opinion on the probable effect on trade, he said he would not be an advocate of an eight hours' legislative day in this country unless a similar proposal were adopted in foreign countries. And further on he expressed his belief that foreign countries would follow the example of this country.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the Question before the Committee now, whether the date should be 1899 or 1897.
    MR. LEGHsaid, one more sentence would be to the point. The witness wont on to say that, if foreign countries did not follow our example we should have to return to the existing system. He admitted that such a Bill might not be an entire success, and certainly in taking such an unusual step it was well to be cautious. The proposal accepted was a fair and reasonable one, but the shorter period would be more satisfactory in view of contingencies that might arise. Should the Bill prove a success there would be no difficulty in renewing it, but if, on the other hand, it was destined—as he believed it was—to become a disastrous failure, then it would be well to have a ready means of retiring from a false position without undue delay.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Amendment (Mr. Stuart-Worthy) agreed to.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS ()confessed he was very agreeably surprised at the spirit in which the promoters of the Bill had accepted Amendments so far, and was even encouraged to hope that they might accept the Amendment he was about to move. He frankly admitted it was of a far more important and far-reaching character than those which had been accepted, yet still he hoped that by the time he came to the end of his remarks hon. Gentlemen would be convinced of the justice of the claim he made on behalf of the majority of those who would be chiefly interested. He had very little doubt that had the House gone into Committee on the Bill at an earlier

    817
    period of the Session, when the normal number of Members were in attendance, the Amendment be was about to move would have been carried, but as to its fate now he had considerable doubt. Within the House and its precincts there were probably not more than a third of the Members of the House of Commons, and he was in the unfortunate position that many supporters of Ins Amendment were absent, having paired with Members of the other side of the House, who also were supporters of the Amendment. He hoped that those Members who were present would approach the consideration of this question with an open mind. The Government had over and over again declared they took no side as a Government upon questions involved in the Bill; the Prime Minister had said so, the Leader of the House had said so, and the Home Secretary had said the same thing, so that the prestige of the Government would in no way be affected by any decision at which the Committee might arrive. Members who were pledged to support the Second Beading were not committed to any line of action towards Amendments proposed at this stage, and in fact several hon. Members who supported the Second Reading did reserve to themselves the right to support any modifications they might see fit to adopt in Committee, and several declared that they would not be prepared to support the Third Reading unless the Bill were considerably modified in Committee. That view was taken notably by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West, Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) and by tire right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). He would refer later on to the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham in his clear and able speech in support of the Bill a couple of years ago, but first he would refer to the speech of the late Prime Minister in support of the Second Reading of the Bill, which was word for word identical with this. He, for his own part, attached very great weight to that speech, and the attitude taken up by the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion, and believed it contributed materially to the decision the House arrived at on the Second Reading of the Bill, and he hoped the Committee would bear with him while he read extracts. In 1893 the
    818
    right hon. Gentleman recorded his vote with certain reservations. He said—
    "I am bound to say I do feel that this is a question in which the protection of minorities, if they are thus to be called, is a subject having the utmost claims upon our attention. I frankly own that, after every fair allowance for uncertainty and disputed points, I am not ready to consent upon the Third Reading of this Hill to apply the compulsion it would impart to a community such as that which is represented by the miners of Northumberland and Durham. … For my own part, it appears to me, I confess, that a compulsory measure of this kind ought not to take effect except with the moral certainty on our part that the measure would express the sense of a majority so large in the various districts of the country that it might be said to be the general sense of the community."
    Now, there was no proof whatever—far from a "moral certainty"—no proof whatever that the majority of the working classes affected favoured the Bill in its present form. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say—
    "It is quite clear that you cannot always have regard to minorities altogether insignificant in their numbers, but, at the same time, I must own I think it would not only be an unwarranted, but a dangerous course on the part of this House in compulsory legislation of this character, and in exceptional legislation of this character, to have no regard to anything except to the fact of a considerable majority of the mining class at large, and to be prepared to override the local sense of such important communities as those of the Northumberland and Durham miners. I almost think that many of the friends of the Bill, when they come to close quarters on the question, when we pass out altogether from the region of what might be called abstract discussion, and have to answer to ourselves what degree of compulsion and under what circumstances we were prepared to apply it, I almost think that some of them will shrink from the application of that compulsion in such a case as I have supposed."
    That was the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman in 1893, and from a recent letter it was to be gathered that he had not changed his opinion. In that letter he said—
    "I am clear that if the miners desire the Eight Hours Bill with a degree of concurrence approaching unanimity, they have a moral title to it. Of the moral title to impose it on a considerable minority I am very doubtful, and I apprehend that if the minority is really considerable it will be found practically more difficult to overpower than some among the promoters of the Bill may imagine."
    [Cries of "Read on!"] He had no objection to read the remainder—
    "The general adoption of the eight hours will give me, personally, very great satisfaction. I must not omit to say that, in speaking of Local

    819
    Option, I contemplate the action of districts rather than that of single collieries in near neighbourhood to one another."
    His Amendment in contemplating local option proposed counties and not single collieries. He regarded this letter as showing that the right Gentleman still held the view that local option should be adopted as part of the Bill. He was doubtful of the moral title of the majority to impose a Bill such as this on a considerable minority, and it was only where the majority was so great as to amount to practical unanimity that he would support the Bill in its present form without local option. He (Mr. Thomas) did not think the hon. Member for Ince or any hon. Member present would dream of saying that there was anything like practical unanimity amongst the miners throughout the United Kingdom in support of the Bill in its present form. He should like to point out the very varying degrees of reduction which would take place in different parts of the country under the Bill in its present form. In some counties the Bill would cause hardly any reduction in the hours of labour, while in others it would involve a reduction of from 20 per cent, to 25 per cent., and thus the Committee would see that it would be very unequal in its treatment. He was not opposed to the principle of Parliamentary interference; his objection was entirely to the Bill in its present form. As the Committee knew, he himself had introduced a Bill on this very subject, so that his objection was entirely to the Bill in its present form. If an Amendment he had down for a later stage had been accepted by the promoters, it would, to his mind, have removed many of the most serious objections to the Bill, and he should not have been found here to-day moving this Amendment. The hon. Member for West Fife had stated that in his district the hours at the present time were eight from bank to bank. Then, again, from evidence given before the Royal Commission on Labour, it was clearly shown the hours of work in many districts were something like eight from bank to bank. Mr. Parker Rhodes, Secretary to the South Yorkshire Coalowners' Association, gave this evidence before the Royal Commission on Labour—
    820
    "7850.—Chairman: What are the average hours of the collier from bank to bank?—I got that out as carefully as I could, in order to make a Return to the Board of Trade, and also to your Commission; and the average hours from bank to bank are eight.
    7851.—That is from bank to bank?—Yes, it is eight hours and eight minutes really."
    Colonel J. B. Cochrane, Chairman of the South Staffordshire and East Worcestershire Coalmasters' Association, gave this evidence—
    "10915. Mr. Dale: From your observation and experience, what would you put the average hours of the miner at from bank to bank?—I should say 7½.
    10916. That of course must include the descending time, and the meal time?—But not the ascending.
    10917. That is just as you choose to put it. It is better to put it including the ascending time?—Then I would make it from 7½ to eight hours, I think."
    On the other hand, Mr. William Jenkins, manager of the Ocean collieries—the most extensive in South Wales—gave this evidence—
    12103. Mr. Dale: "Of course that is equivalent to saying you know that the time now from bank to bank is 9¾ hours?—Quite so."
    So that in many districts the hours at the present time were only eight from bank to bank. In Fife, Midlothian, Worcestershire, South Staffordshire, and South Yorkshire the hours were already eight from bank to bank, so that the Bill would not make any practical difference in those districts in the hours of colliers and hewers, who formed the most important section of workmen underground. It might make a little difference in individual cases, but nothing of a serious character. It was most curious that the original demand for the Bill came from districts where the miners already had eight hours. They practically had the Eight Hours Bill themselves, and, not satisfied with that, they wanted to impose it on other districts. They did not wish to have it in South Wales. They there had nine hours winding coal, which practically meant 10 hours from bank to bank. On some days in the week in various collieries they worked 10½ hours. He would give three main reasons for the Amendment which he proposed—first, that any district had a right to determine such a question for itself, without the intervention of Parliament, provided that it did not interfere in any way with other districts. If he could show that South

    821
    Wales—for he spoke more particularly I in regard to South Wales—might be allowed to decide for itself what hours it would have, without affecting Yorkshire or other districts in England, he claimed that it should be allowed to do it. His second point was this: that there were different classes of coal produced in different districts, and that, while the Bill would not adversely affect the federated or home trade district from which it emanated, it would seriously affect the South Wales and Northumberland and Durham, which depended on foreign export business. The Committee would see that his second point had a very important bearing indeed on the question of local option. Men who wanted the Bill would not suffer in any way, but the men who did not want the Bill would be much prejudiced by it if it were passed in its present shape, as they would have to compete with foreign coal, the production of which could be increased in proportion to the falling-off in the output at home. His third and most important reason for asking the Committee to allow each district to decide the matter for themselves was this: there were differences in the geological and natural conditions under which coal was produced that made the present form of the Bill undesirable, and there would, therefore, be injustice and unreasonableness in applying the same cast-iron rule in every district. But, before discussing these points in detail, he should like to deal with an argument very constantly put forward, and which unless disposed of at the outset, might prevent due weight being given to the considerations he had to urge. It was this: it was said that, although the hours might be reduced, the output would not be diminished, because the men would work with increased enery, and in the shorter time would be able to produce quite as much as in the longer hours. They were told that the experience of the past bore that out. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, in the speech he had made in support of the Second Reading last year or the year before, put that argument forward very clearly and very forcibly. But he (Mr. Thomas) would like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that in the illustrations he had used, the hours had been reduced from the long hours of 12, 11, and 10 to
    822
    10 and 9, but that in this Bill it was proposed to reduce the hours from eight—for the longest period worked in South Wales, he thought, did not exceed eight—to six and a-half, or six, or even, in some districts, possibly to even less thant hat. He wanted to show this: that this argument of the experience of the past, where voluntary arrangements had been entered into, was far from being an argument in favour of a reduction of hours by Act of Parliament, and was really an argument in favour of no interference at all. In the past, reductions had been made by voluntary agreement in almost all cases. What did that mean? It meant that employers conversant in each particular case with the nature of the employment engaged in, considered that by a reduction of hours a certain result would follow—that was to say, that the men by increased energy would be able to maintain the output. They had done so in the coal trade all over the country. Certainly in South Wales they had made reductions in the hours of work which they had felt would be followed by no material reduction in the output. They had been right. Then could they not claim to be right when they said that no further reduction could be made? That was why he claimed that the argument was in their favour. The employers were right in the past when they said that no reduction of output would follow from the reduction of hours, and they thought they were right when they said now that further reduction of hours would be followed by a reduction of output. There was a limit to the argument. They could not go on for ever reducing the hours without curtailing the output. There must be some limit beyond which they could not go. If there was no limit, they would soon be in the enviable position of doing no work at all, and enjoying themselves at leisure immensely on a toy output produced by nobody. He believed the limit in coal-mining had been, he would not say quite reached, but very nearly reached, for the present, and, if they would allow him, he should like to give his own personal experience in the matter. No doubt the hon. Member for the Rhondda Valley would say he (Mr. D. A. Thomas) was not always against the eight hours.
    MR. W. ABRAHAM (): Clewch, clewch!
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: The hon. Member said "Clewch, clewch." He (Mr. Thomas) confessed he was a convert, though perhaps not so recent as some people. He would tell the Committee the reason—which his hon. Friend, although he knew it, had never been candid enough to state in public. As a young man, he was ambitious to be a pioneer in this movement, and he put into force the eight hours bank to bank system.
    MR. W. ABRAHAM: With a double shift.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: Yes, with a double shift, and he was certain his hon. Friend would not get up and move the prohibition of the double shift in the Bill. He would challenge him to do it. He tried the system in a colliery with the management of which he had a good deal to do. The result was that, at the end of 13 months, with the desire that it should succeed, and everything being done on his part to make it succeed, the men declared that they would not go on working in that way, because they objected to the double-shift system. But how did it affect their output and wages? The output per collier per day, working the shorter hours, was 1·67 tons per day. When they returned to the longer hours it was 2·06 tons, or a difference of about 23 per cent. Now, he was curious to know what his hon. Friend would have to say in reply to that. On the expiration of the 13 months it was shown that the reduction in the output under the system was almost exactly proportionate to the reduction in the time. That showed that in South Wales, at any rate, they had reached a limit, below which no considerable reduction in the hours could be made without materially reducing the output. In a neighbouring pita similar result bad been arrived at, though the average was taken over a longer period and single shifts were worked. The hours in this case were 10½ from bank to bank on Fridays, and eight on Saturdays. From 1888 to 1892 the averages showed that the production on Fridays exceeded that of Saturdays by, roughly speaking, a quantity proportionate to the increased time worked. The output was from 25 to 25¼ percent, larger on Friday than on Saturday.
    824
    Those were facts from actual experience which were worth a ton of theory. They were in this difficulty in dealing with the question; he did not know what view the hon. Member for Eccles took, but some hon. Members declared that no reduction in the output would follow. The hon. Member for Normanton said that whereas the Members for Ince and Rhondda said it would, and no doubt they would not care a snap of the fingers for the Bill unless the out pit were reduced, for they belonged to a school of economists who thought that the less there was produced the more there would be to divide. He hoped that during the course of this discussion the hon. Members for Normanton and Rhondda would endeavour to settle their differences, and ascertain which was the correct view. He had on this point an extract from a speech made by the Member for Rhondda which he would like to read. The hon. Member said—
    "It was only by the reduction of hours or adhering to the nine hours a day system that the restriction of output could be satisfactorily carried out under the present system."
    The nine hours a day system meant nine hours winding coal and not from bank to bank, which they did not adhere to at present according to his hon. Friend, and this in itself seemed to show that there could be no very strong demand for eight hours from bank to bank. The nine hours' working day meant 10 hours from bank to bank, which was the system in vogue at the present day.
    MR. W. ABRAHAM: It is not a 10 hours' day.
    MR. D. A. THOMASsaid, that if it was nine hours winding coal it was practically 10 hours from bank to bank, for his hon. Friend must know that it took 40 or 50 minutes in a big colliery to let the men down, and a similar time to bring them up, and as they could not bring them up in exactly the order in which they went down, an hour must be deducted from the bank to bank time to get in the time left for coal winding.
    MR. W. ABRAHAM: The hon. Member gave just now this piece of information—that in South Wales they were winding coal 10 hours a day.
    MR. D. A. THOMASsaid, he thought he had said 10 hours from bank to bank and nine hours winding coal. If he had not said that he had made a mistake. Some hon. Members around him, who

    825
    were on the same side as the hon. Member for Rhondda upon this question, assured him that he had said that: The hon. Member for Rhondda had also said, in a speech delivered a few months back—
    "From a computation recently made it was found that between the overtime paid for and the overtime not paid for the men worked 11 hours per day instead of nine; and if they agreed to strike off that two hours they would restrict the output by about 20 per cent. Two hours knocked off from the 100,000 miners of South Wales would give additional employment to 20,000 more men. If that could be brought about it would create such a demand for labour as to considerably strengthen the market and do away with the danger of reducing prices."
    The hon. Member had added—
    "And he appealed to them most earnestly to do all in their power to bring about the nine hours' day."
    So that the miners in the Rhondda Valley, whom the hon. Member represented, and whom he said were so extremely anxious to have a seven hours' winding day, he had to appeal to to do all in their power to bring about a nine hours' winding day. That did not look as if they were very keenly in favour of this Bill. He (Mr. Thomas) said, the reduction in the output in South Wales would be from 20 to 25 per cent., but his hon. Friend argued it would be more than that. He made it 40 per cent.
    MR. W. ABRAHAM: No, no.
    MR.D. A. THOMASsaid, he had read the hon. Member's speeches, and that was his view if he was correctly reported in The South Wales Daily News, which was a newspaper on very friendly terms with the hon. Member. He now wished to go a little more fully into his reasons against the compulsory form of the Bill. His hon. Friend would go with him as far as he could on this principle he was sure, because in the controversy which bad been going on between the sliding-scale party, and the federationists in South Wales, his hon. Friend had always been a strong advocate for Home Rule for Wales on the wages question. That was whathe(Mr. Thomas) was asking for Glamorganshire on this question, and he therefore hoped he should be able to carry his hon. Friend with him to some extent as to the first point he was endeavouring to make. But he thought the onus of showing that Wales could not be allowed to remain as it was and that the independent action of Wales would affect other districts, rested
    826
    upon the promoters of the Bill. He contended that there was little or no competition between the South Wales district and the Midland districts, from which the demand for this Bill came. He assumed that South Wales, if left to itself, would not accept the Bill in its present form. The hon. Member for Rhondda would dispute this, and would no doubt speak for himself. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean disputed it; but if he was wrong, when South Wales came to take a ballot they could declare in favour of the Bill. At a recent ballot taken in the Merthyr boroughs, at 21 collieries no ballot was taken at the collieries in his hon. Friend's agency for obvious reasons—there was a majority in every case against the Bill in its present form. The total majority was four to one, the figures being 2,567 for the bank to bank and 8,838 against. One little point arose that he should like to draw attention to. After it was decided by the district generally that a ballot should be taken he received a letter from the secretary to the Dowlais Workmen's Committee in April last saying that the Dowlais workmen wished him to vote for the bank to bank Bill, that they had taken a ballot some few years previously, and by 1,600 to 300 odd had decided in favour of the bank to bank Bill, and saw no reason for taking a fresh ballot. He went to Dowlais himself and called a meeting of the colliers. About 1,000 men were present, and it was very clear which way the meeting was going, and an Amendment was proposed to the resolution against the bank to bank Bill in favour of taking a ballot by the very gentleman who had written to him. He suggested that both the motion and the amendment might very well both be passed, and they were passed, and the meeting decided against the eight hours' bank to bank Bill. On a ballot 1,973 voted against the eight hours' bank to bank, and 428 for. This showed the tremendous change which took place in the feeling of the workmen in two or three years. On the first occasion there was an overwhelming majority in favour of the Bill, and then there was an overwhelming majority, even greater, against it. This was evidence that the leaders of the miners might sometimes be mistaken as to the feeling of the men; and it showed

    827
    also that that House ought to take great care not to pass hurried legislation in regard to this matter. He had now, he thought, convinced the Committee that he had some authority for speaking for South Wales. They had taken a ballot, and over and over again they had challenged their friends on the other side to take a ballot; but they would not do so, and the only conclusion he could come to was that they were afraid to do so. He came now to his next point—namely, the character of the South Wales trade. The South Wales, Northumberland, and Durham trade was a foreign trade, while the trade in the Federation districts was a home trade. He should like to call the attention of the Committee to this fact—the South Wales and the Lancashire and the Northumberland and the Durham miners comprised altogether very nearly half the miners in England and Wales. There were over 250,000 miners in those districts, and 330,000 in the rest of England, which they might call the Federation district. In 1892 he found, from Returns which were available to every Member of the Committee, that the foreign exports from England and Wales (he was not speaking of Scotland) were rather less than 25,500,000 tons; the export from South Wales and Monmouth and Tyne ports was over 22,500,000 tons—that was to say, the exports from non-Federation districts were 22,500,000 out of a total of 25,000,000. Consequently, from these districts there was exported nine-tenths of the whole of the coal sent abroad from England and Wales. He would now point out what proportion of coal produced in South Wales was exported, and what proportion in the Federation districts. In 1892, Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire exported for foreign and bunker use 18,000,000 to 20,000,000 out of its total production of 30,000,000, or between 60 and 70 per cent. In the Federation districts, out of a total output of 90,000,000, there was exported only 3,000,000, or less than 3 per cent. That showed the Committee how entirely different the trade of the districts was. He thought this had a very important bearing on the question of local option. It was clear that a very insignificant proportion of the coal produced in the Federation district was exported, and therefore it did not matter, as far as foreign competition
    828
    was concerned, what happened in regard to the hours of labour; but in South Wales, where 60 or 70 per cent, of the output was exported, if the Bill passed in its present form it would have a very disastrous effect upon their trade, increasing the cost of production by 20, or, as some people believed 30 per cent. He was l0th to say much about the question of foreign competition, because he knew it had often been put forward as a bogie in order to get reductions and put off advances in wages. There was no doubt, however, that foreign countries-had made very great progress as compared with this country in recent years. A few years ago we were millions and tens of millions of tons in advance of the United States, but now they had very nearly caught us up. He should like to give an instance or two upon this question of foreign competition, and the House would understand that he was speaking from actual experience, because he was engaged every day of his life in selling coal, and knew something about foreign competition. In many places abroad the competition was becoming exceedingly severe, so that English coal was being rapidly driven out by foreign coal. He knew it had been pointed out that notwithstanding this the total aggregate exports of the country were increasing. That, no doubt, was so; but many causes had contributed to that, to which he would refer later. Figures showed that in 1892 the coal exported to competitive points was materially less than in 1883, notwithstanding that there was a vastly increased number of steamers, as against 10 years ago. In 1883 we exported to the Russian Southern ports, 312,333 tons; in 1892, 42,506 tons; to British East Indies, 323,620 tons in 1883, and 202,894 in 1892; to China and Hong Kong, 64,804 tons in 1883, and 19,110 tons in 1892; to British North America, 174,314 tons in 1883, and 71,674 in 1892; to the United States, 111,736 tons in 1883, and 22,576 in 1892; and to the Foreign West Indies, 272,453 tons in 1883,and 117,788 tons in 1892. The total result was, that whereas in 1883 we exported over 1,250,000 tons, in 1892 we exported less than 500,000 tons. He knew from his own personal experience that steamers went out to the East and returned

    829
    without using any English coal at all. They coaled at Antwerp, where they got Belgian coal at 13s. 6d. a ton, and at the other side they got Japan coal at Singapore at 7s. per ton less than best Welsh. The coal trade had been materially benefited during the last 10 years by the enormous drop in freights and the consequent cheaper conveyance. There had been enormous reductions in freights. The freights to Singapore, Martinique, and Bombay, which were something like £1, say, in 1880, were to-day 10s., 7s. 6d., and 8s. respectively. The quotation to Antwerp was now 4s. 3d., and to Malta 4s. This great fall had immensely stimulated the South Wales coal trade, but it could not be expected to continue. It had reached its limit in fact, and steamers had ceased to be remunerative. Japanese coal was fast cutting us out in Singapore, where it could be obtained at something like 7s. per ton less than Welsh coal. Another point he wished to make was the difference between the working conditions in the Welsh mines and the Midland districts, imposed by nature, and which could not be altered by this Bill. He had worked out from Government Returns some figures showing how much more difficult it was to work coal in South Wales than in some of the districts from which the demand for this Bill came. The hours were longer in South Wales, and the output was less; and the hours were longer because the nature of the strata demanded it. He daresay hon. Members had often observed how frequent accidents were in South Wales from falls of the roofs and sides as compared with other districts. The reason for that was the brittle character of the strata as compared with that in English collieries. In England one might go a long distance through a colliery without seeing any pitwood, whereas in Wales the sides of the road were studded with props; and it took three or four times more pitwood in a South Wales mine than in an English mine, which enormously increased the cost of production. It was not only the pitwood itself that was expensive, but there was the cost of putting it up to be taken into account as well. In order to produce 1,000,000 tons of coal per annum, with eight hours bank to bank, it took 338 repairers in
    830
    South Yorkshire, while in Glamorganshire it took 734. Again, four men in Glamorganshire could only produce the same amount of coal in a given time that three could produce in Nottinghamshire. Hon. Gentlemen would see what bearing this had upon the Amendment he was moving. If it took so many more men to produce the same quantity of coal in a given time it was unreasonable to lay down the same working hours for each district. By reason of the natural condition of things men in the more difficult districts must either work longer hours or receive less wages. He believed that in South Wales the men would prefer to work a little longer than in other districts, and have their wages maintained. He would make an appeal to the hon. Member for Haddingtonshire, who was a very strong opponent to the principle involved in this Bill some little time ago; he appealed to him to explain to the Committee the change in his opinion that had occurred. The hon. Gentleman told his constituents recently that he would do his utmost to put the Bill into a practical and working shape. He (Mr. Thomas) did not know what experience his hon. Friend had of the matter they were discussing, but he hoped he would tell them what changes he proposed to make in the Bill in order to make it workable. Did the hon. Gentleman think this Amendment a practical one? If not, why not?
    MR. HALDANEsaid, his statement was that he should do his best to make the Bill workable.
    MR. D.A.THOMAS(continuing) said, ho was bound to say ho should very much like to Lave the views of the Home Secretary. He (Mr. Asquith) had said he was convinced that this Bill was a practical one. Holding the position he did, he thought they were entitled to have his opinion, and that he should show them how this Bill could come into operation without prejudice to the district he represented. He did not know whether he might make any appeal to the Irish Members, but he hoped that they would carefully consider this Amendment and come to a decision entirely upon its merits. Hon. Members on his side of the House were divided, and he would remind them that three of the direct Labour Representatives were in favour of the Amendment, while three were opposed

    831
    to it. The Liberal Party was divided upon this question, and he begged hon. Members from Ireland in their own interest not as a body to take sides or to do anything which might damp enthusiasm for their cause. Finally, he asked each individual of the Committee to recognise the vast responsibility that rested upon the shoulders of those who recorded their vote upon this Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in page I, line 9, after the last Amendment, to insert the words—
    "In any county in which a majority of the workmen employed underground in the mines therein shall so resolve, in manner hereinafter provided, and so long as such resolution shall remain unrescinded."—(Mr. D. Thomas.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. ROBYsaid, he regretted that he should be in any way opposed to his friends from Northumberland, Durham, and Wales, but he could not help thinking that the)' looked with a too conservative eye at their own arrangements, without considering how much could be done without incurring the changes and risks that they feared. All these difficulties were dealt with upon the occasion of the Second Heading of the Bill, and he thought that those who voted for the Second Heading would be of opinion that the decision arrived at really involved the rejection of this Amendment also. He could understand the desire of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment to show that there was no competition between Durham and South Wales and the rest of the country; but, unfortunately, be was not right in that matter, because, during the coal strike, the colliery owners availed themselves of any opportunity they had of entering into competition with other districts. This Bill had from the first been one of a very limited and definite character. It did not permit any exception whatever, and he believed that no substantial exception could be admitted to the Bill. If they had eight hours enacted by the Legislature in one part of the country, they so far tied the hands of the masters and workmen in that part as against the other parts of the country. They could not, in a country which had so many facilities for carrying coal from
    832
    one district to another, to be used in the manufactories, proceed upon the same lines as though a primitive state of affairs existed, and coal was consumed only in the districts in which it was produced. If the coal of South Wales was consumed only in South Wales there might be more to be said for the case of the opponents of the Bill. His hon. Friend spoke of Wales as though the miners there were all of his way of thinking, and as though their number was very large. The number of underground miners in South Wales was 70,000.
    MR. ABRAHAM: 110,000.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: The only place where the matter has been tested there were four to one against the Bill.
    MR. ROBYsaid, he did not think that would be a reasonable conclusion to draw. Such figures were really for a purpose of this kind worth very little. What should be done was to take the largo organisations and see how they had continued to act year after year in this important matter. The Aberdare and Merthyr districts were spoken of by Mr. David Morgan before the Labour Commission; but he could only speak for the men in the Union. The number of men in the Union was 7,000, while there were 15,000 men in the Valleys, so that more than half were not represented by the Union, in which only a majority was in favour of the old system. As to Northumberland and Durham, he frankly admitted that from the first he had seen that the case of those two counties was a strong one. If, however, this Bill were carried it would not force upon the hewers in Durham and Northumberland more hours of labour than they had at present, as they were now working seven or six and a half hours. The persons whose work it would reduce were boys, who were now working 10 hours, and in whose interest the eight hours might well be enforced. He regretted that this and other Amendments in the same direction had been placed on the Paper. He believed he was only expressing the opinion of the supporters of the Bill when he said that they regarded one and all of those Amendments as fatal to the Bill, and were not prepared to go on with the Bill if they were carried. If this Amendment were adopted, on Northumberland and Durham and the Aberdare Districts

    833
    would rest the responsibility of rejecting a measure which was desired by all the other districts, and which would, he believed, be of great assistance to the country generally. The proposal must be fatal to the Bill, because it would prevent the system working with harmony all over the country, and would thus prevent the removal of one great cause of strife.
    MR. W. ABRAHAM ()said, his hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr (Mr. D. Thomas) had admitted that he had laid himself open to the accusation of having changed his opinions. No one knew better than his hon. Friend how many times he had changed his opinions on this question, and any one who would look through the list of Amendments to this Bill would see that his hon. Friend had, with great ability, proposed a considerable number of contradictory Amendments. His hon. Friend had trimmed his sails so as to catch every wind that blew. Anything that was accepted he would accept, and if anything was refused he would also have a finger in the pie. His hon. Friend had contended that the difficulty in regard to the production of coal in South Wales was the physical difficulty of strata. The facts connected with his hon. Friend's own collieries, however, proved otherwise. The men in Wales, it was said, were able to produce 25 per cent. more coal than the men in Nottingham, but lately the system called "the Nottingham system" had been introduced into South Wales, and whore it had been tried it had been found that the men were able to produce about 25 per cent, more under the new system than under the old, so that means had already been provided by his hon. Friend and other coal owners of making it easier to carry out the change proposed by this Bill. He did not think it mattered much to that House what were the personal opinions of his hon. Friend and himself with regard to this question. They wanted to know the opinions of the working men themselves. It was well known that in South Wales and Monmouthshire there were 110,000 people working in and about mines. Since 1887 those men had been represented in the Trade Union Congresses in this country, and had always voted in favour of the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill, and they had sent representatives to the
    834
    International Congress, and the miners of South Wales each time until the last occasion had given their votes solid in favour of miners' eight hours from bank to bank. His hon. Friend (Mr. D. Thomas) himself, when a candidate for Merthyr, and for some time after that, was known to be a strong advocate of the eight hours from bank to bank. He had changed his opinions, and had given his reasons why.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: My hon. Friend is quite wrong.
    MR. W. ABRAHAM: I again say my hon. Friend during the time he was a candidate for the borough of Merthyr, and for some time afterwards, was a strong advocate of the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill from bank to bank.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: If I may be allowed to correct the hon. Member, in 1891 I voted against the eight hours bank to bank. In this House, in 1888, I think there was no talk of any Eight Hours Bank to Bank Bill.
    MR. W. ABRAHAMsaid, that explained his position, because his hon. Friend had no vote when ho was a candidate. In moving the Amendment, the greatest argument adduced by his hon. Friend was that a portion of the miners of South Wales were against the Bill. But that was beside the question entirely. That was not the Amendment before the House. His hon. Friend had not been able to quote a single voice among the leaders of t he workmen in South Wales, who were in favour of this Amendment. The ballot that was taken among them was on the question whether they were in favour of eight hours from bank to bank, or eight hours working. His hon. Friend had 20,000 miners in his constituency, but he was only able to account for 10,000 of them ill the ballot. With all respect to people who had changed their minds, they had not changed theirs, and they did not see the necessity of taking a ballot. The men themselves did not see the necessity of taking a ballot, and if they were to take a ballot at the request of his hon. Friend, they would want to know from him whether he had finally made up his mind upon this question. They had not heard of any leader of the men in South Wales who had changed his opinion, and there was nobody in South Wales who had the same opinion as his hon. Friend.
    SIR F. S. POWEEL ()said the Bill would have unequal effects in different districts. In some cases the coal workings were at the shaft, in others they were at a great distance from the shaft, and there the effect of the Bill would be most disastrous upon the hours of work. There was a large colliery in his constituency where the time spent in going down to the face of the coal was an hour and the return to the bank was 75 minutes, making altogether 135 minutes, and there was an incidental waste of a quarter of an hour in the lowering and in the ascent. The total result was the loss of one hour and 50 minutes, and the hours of work would be only six hours and 10 minutes. In another colliery the time spent in going backwarks and forwards was an hour, and that only left seven hours actual work. The nature of the working and the character of the coal must also be considered. In some cases it was worked much more easily than in other cases, and to have a severe limit of hours would give them a great advantage compared in collieries where the working was more difficult. In some cases the charge would be so great that collieries would be entirely closed and men would be deprived of their occupation. He contended that danger must arise if the limit of hours was eight. There was danger from the haste in which some men worked. It was not easy to restrain the eagerness of the young collier who desired to get down the coal in as little time as he could. In addition to that natural eagerness, there was the further difficulty of his being pressed by legislation; and he was quite sure that danger would be greatly increased, and the number of accidents would be considerably multiplied. There was another injustice which they desired to avert by carrying this Amendment, that was the injustice to slow workers. Some men constitutionally worked more slowly than others; and probably a careful workman who desired to protect himself and avert danger from his neighbour worked more slowly than a more impetuous man. Therefore, on the ground of danger, he contended that the privileges and exemptions claimed by this Amendment ought to be conceded. The necessity for the Bill could not be put upon the plea of health, for they knew, from statistics, that the occupation of the
    836
    miner was a healthy one. He was surprised to hear his hon. Friend the Member for Eccles speaking against the principle of local option in this respect. The Bill meant coercion; it meant compelling workmen who desired to be free to submit to what they regarded as bondage; and, in supporting the Amendment, he did so on behalf of a large number of workmen in Wigan whose sentiments were well known to him.
    MR. TOMLLNSONsaid, he believed the Bill contained in itself the seeds of so much real disaster to the general interests of the country that he only looked upon an Amendment of this kind as in some degree mitigating that disaster. He believed that the feeling in favour of the Bill which had, no doubt, been expressed by large bodies of workmen at different times was being diminished the more the workmen became acquainted with the possible or probable results of carrying it. out. Though he did not look with any great amount of satisfaction on any of these so-called local option Amendments, the carrying of them would have this advantage. Upon workmen of each colliery, or each district or county, or whatever unit was taken, would rest the responsibility of carrying into operation the provisions of the Bill. Another thing that would happen, if in any way local option was carried out, was this: that the men would have to consider the question not as it affected the day's work, but as it would affect the week's work, the month's work, and even the year's work. At the present moment in Lancashire no individual collier worked more than five days a week, and he believed the average all over the Kingdom was rather less than five days a week, the last Returns putting it at from 4½ to 4¾ days. In no large district in the country did the miners work six days a week, but if this Bill passed and the men wished to make the same wages they made now they would have to work six days a week, and therefore the men ought to be left to decide for themselves the course they would adopt. Local option undoubtedly brought them face to face with these alternatives, and it should be left in the hands of the men to decide whether they would accept lower wages or work for a greater number of days. The reason this Bill was regarded with less favour in the districts of South Wales and

    837
    the East Coast, was that those districts were the chief exporting districts, and the men came to the conclusion that the result of the Bill would be to raise the price of coal in those districts, and tend to interfere with the export trade. The same thing would apply to the Mid-land coalfields, including Lancashire and Yorkshire, although the operation would not be so direct. Even at the present moment it was extremely difficult for those interested in and dependent upon the coal industry to maintain themselves against foreign competition, and it was a matter of common notoriety that the Belgium ironworks were driving out the trade of the English ironworks in many parts of the country. He knew of one large building now in course of erection intended for manufacturing purposes, and in the heart of the manufacturing districts, in which the whole of the ironwork came from Belgium, and there was no doubt that the competition of Belgian iron was even now depriving British works of the business formerly carried on. He knew there were many hon. Members who said that the price of coal would not be materially increased by the adoption of this Bill, but he believed that those who said so had not fully studied the effect of the Bill. It so happened that he had in his hands the result of an experiment which had been carried on at a certain colliery with a view to ascertain what the effect of the shorter hours would be: 8½ hours' winding coal was equivalent to 10 hours from bank to bank, and the output in that case from 155 men was 313 tons; when the working time got down to 8¼ hours from bank to bank, with 169 men, the output sank to 247 tons; and an eight-hour day, from bank to bank, with 152 miners, gave an output of 208 tons. He need not go through all the details; but the increased cost per ton worked out, for 8¼ hours' day, at 6d.—7, and with a reduction to 8 hours the increase of cost was 11d.—8. If the workmen were to earn as much upon the new basis as upon the old, they would have to be paid as much as would make the additional cost of getting the coal 2s. 5d.—3. If the result of the Bill was to increase the price of coal to that extent it would make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a considerable number of industries which required coal to be carried on, and the inevitable
    838
    consequence would be to drive trade into foreign countries, and to throw large bodies of men out of work in this country altogether. His view in supporting the Amendment was that before the Bill became operative in any district the colliers who were to be the subjects of it should have the opportunity of putting themselves face to face with what the real effects of the measure would be likely to be—namely, the alternative of lower wages or a greater number of hours.
    MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON ()said, it was now something like a quarter of a century since he had the control of perhaps the largest coalfield in South Wales, so that credit would be given to him of having some experience of this subject. He might also mention that while a great many of the enthusiastic advocates of to-day of eight hours for miners were in the nursery, ho was advocating such a limitation of hours, so that the subject was not in any sense a new one to him. On the contrary, it was a subject to which he had devoted a considerable amount of thought and attention; and it was one which was very near and dear to his breast. But he took the liberty of saying that this was not an eight hours Bill at all. It was a very short Bill, but it was a very mischievous Bill. It had been conceived by those who knew little or nothing about colliers or colliers' interests; and he ventured to say that if the hon. Member who drew this Bill had his time over again he was certain he would never dream of drawing a Bill such as that which had been presented to the House this Session. There were several points in the Bill which, to the experienced mind, went to prove that it was not an Eight Hours Bill at all. When he advocated eight hours for underground men, he took the line that the eight hours should mean from the working; but it was well known that a certain amount of time was occupied in a man getting to his work in the mine, and this ought not to be included in the time devoted to the working of the coal. To include that time in the hours of working would be just the same as if in a warehouse, where young men had to go from 9

    839
    o'clock in the morning till 6 o'clock in the evening.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must call the hon. Member's attention to the fact that he is not speaking to the Amendment.
    MR. WOOTTON ISAACSONsaid, he would endeavour, as far as possible, to keep within the limits of the Amendment, but he thought that what he was saying was coming to the point. He maintained that if the Amendment was not carried the effect of the Bill would be to increase the cost of the production of coal, to decrease the wages of the men, and to increase the number of accidents in the mines. The views that were stated by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil represented the views of the majority of the miners in South Wales. He was rather amazed at the little quibble which was made with regard to the meeting which had been called by the hon. Gentleman, and at which, out of 2,300 men present, 1,900 were on his side, and 400 against. He maintained that any gentleman who represented a constituency in South Wales who was able to get together a meeting of 2,300 miners had secured a very representative gathering, and one which he was quite justified in being proud of. If the hon. Gentleman would come into his district, into Blaenan, or into Nantyglo, or into the Ebbw Vale district, he would find hundreds of thousands of miners ready to rally around him and to vote in identically the same manner as those 1,900 men did. This proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the hon. Member for Eccles knew nothing of the requirements of South Wales. He might know something about Yorkshire and Lancashire, but he maintained that he knew nothing of what was required for South Wales. If the Committee would permit him, he would point out that the eight hours which were in this Bill were not even reduced to seven hours, but were reduced to six and a-half hours in many instances, and he was sure hon. Gentlemen never could have contemplated passing a Bill which not only gave the colliers the right to work eight hours, but also gave them the privilege of reducing those eight hours to six and a-half hours. There was another matter to which he would like to call the attention of the Committee. A collier, in
    840
    order to earn his livelihood, was paid for the amount of coal he cut. It was manifestly clear that, if a collier was paid by the amount of coal he cut, with all these drawbacks in getting to his work, he could not possibly cut a sufficient amount of coal to earn a livelihood. In cutting the coal a man was obliged to leave what was known as a vast amount of rubbish in the pit, and if he had to vacate the pit while that rubbish was being removed he would lose a great deal of time in which he might be earning money.
    MR. LITTLE ()rose to a point of Order. He submitted that the hon. Member was not speaking to the Amendment.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to speak to the Amendment.
    MR. WOOTTON ISAACSONsaid, the Amendment embodied so much that it was difficult in speaking upon it not to refer to many points bearing upon the subject. The hon. Member for Eccles had stated that the Amendment embodied so much that if it were carried they would have to abandon the Bill, and as it embodied the whole Bill——
    THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think the Amendment embodies the whole Bill. The question raised by the Amendment is whether the majority of workmen in the country should have the power of adopting the Bill or not.
    MR. WOOTTON ISAACSONsaid, he was explaining these different matters in order to show that if the men had local option they would have the course most beneficial to themselves, and it was impossible to explain that point without showing the great number of objections there would be from the view of the colliers to the passing of this Bill in its present form, and how much preferable it would be that they should have local option. There was also the matter of repairing in the pits. Everybody knew perfectly well that if a collier was deprived of that privilege, which he had hitherto enjoyed, and special men should have to go into the pit to do this work, the collier would consequently lose a large amount of his pay. Then they came to the matter of local option, and he ventured to say that if this Amendment was agreed to by the Committee, at least 95 per cent. of the men in South

    841
    Wales would agree to the Bill on those terms immediately. An hon. Member said "No." He did not know whether that hon. Member had the same knowledge of South Wales that he had, but from the experience he had had in South Wales he had no hesitation in saying that there was no point on which the men were so rigid as that of local option. Only quite recently, in 1892, they had a strike in South Wales. The men went out, not of their own choice, but by order of their delegates. The men had no more idea why they went out than the man in the moon, but as soon as they were approached and asked on what terms they would go back to work they at once said they would go back if they could have local option. The hon. Member who had brought in the Bill had thrown a sort of political grenade into the midst of his Party, and he did not appear to be a very welcome guest among them. If the hon. Member would take his (Mr. Isaacson's) advice he would agree to the Amendment, which would thereby greatly strengthen his Bill.
    SIR C. M. PALMER ()said, his constituents, who were entirely working men, many of them being miners, naturally felt that this Bill was one of the most serious importance to their district. In Northumberland and Durham it was believed that if the Bill passed in its present shape it would paralyse mining and other industries. He was possibly one of the largest coal-owners in the North of England, and when this Bill was introduced he felt it was only due to the miners to investigate the whole subject and inquire how the proposal would affect them. He did so with a natural desire to reduce the hours of labour as much as it was in his power to do so. He found on consulting the agents of his mines, which produced upwards of 2,000,000 tons of coal a year, that if the Bill were passed as it now stood the output would be reduced at least 10 to 20 per cent. This reduction in the output would mean that a large number of miners would be thrown out of employment, while the cost of coal would be increased by from ls. to 2s. per ton. This would render it impossible for many of our national industries to be carried on and would paralyse our export trade. The export trade employed shipping, and thus
    842
    gave employment to the shipbuilding yards and to other industries connected with them. Bad as the shipping industry was now, it would be rendered much worse if the Bill became law. He held in his hand an extract from a newspaper article in which it was stated that our export of coal to Hamburg had fallen from 820,000 tons in the first six months of last year to 760,000 tons during the corresponding period this year, while the import of coal to Hamburg from Westphalia in the same period had risen from 420,000 to 540,000. The fact was that we were losing our markets, not only in the North Sea, but also in the Baltic and other places. The Bill, if passed, would have a most disastrous effect upon the trade of Northumberland and Durham, and he hoped that if the Representatives of other parts of the Kingdom were desirous of having the hours of labour curtailed they would, at all events, give the miners of Northumberland and Durham the right of saying whether the Bill should apply to them or not.
    MR. FENWICK ()said, his hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Roby) had said very truly at the opening of his speech that this Amendment raised the whole question of local option. The proposal was to his (Mr. Fenwick's) mind so natural and so reasonable, having regard to all the difficulties of mining operations, that he should have thought that the least that could have been expected from his hon. Friend was that he should have listened with a free and open mind to the arguments and facts brought forward in support of the Amendment. His. hon. Friend, however, had told the Committee in effect that, however strong the facts, however cogent and conclusive the arguments brought forward, the promoters of the Bill had made up their minds, and would withdraw the Bill if the Amendment were carried. His hon. Friend had said that, if this happened, on the supporters of local option would rest the responsibility of having withheld the privileges conferred by the Bill from those who would have enjoyed them had the measure become law. He (Mr. Fenwick) should have thought that not on those who supported the Amendment but on those who withdrew the Bill in the event of the Amendment being carried would rest the

    843
    responsibility referred to. He was glad that the Debate had been so far conducted in the best of good temper, though he was bound to say he deeply regretted that his hon. Friend the Member for Eccles and those who were acting with him should ha ye come to the conclusion which had been announced before hearing the case the supporters of the Amendment had to present to the Committee. His hon. Friend the Member for Eccles seemed to treat somewhat lightly the argument advanced by his hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. D. Thomas) in reference to the question of foreign competition. Of course it was a common thing to meet that argument by saying it was the old, old bogey that had been trotted out again and again. He (Mr. Fenwick) was not very much given to being startled by bogies, but having considered this question very carefully and fully, and the effect it was likely to produce in the district he had the honour to represent, he had come to the conclusion that there was more real substance in this bogey than would be found in many other bogies that were brought forward. He wished to deal with the question almost exclusively in its relation to the County of Northumberland. Roughly speaking, the output of coal in the United Kingdom was 180,000,000 tons per annum. The output in the County of Northumberland was about 10,000,000 tons per annum, or about one-eighteenth of the entire output of the Kingdom. He believed he was correct in saying that at least 80 per cent, of the coal produced in Northumberland was exported, having to compete in the open market with coal that was produced in France, Belgium, Germany, and other parts of Europe. The total export from the United Kingdom in 1892, when the coal trade was in a fairly normal condition, was rather under 30,500,000 tons, but it was fair to say that this included cinders and patent fuel. He had taken the figures from the Statistical Abstract. They showed that practically Northumberland sent out more than 33 per cent, of the entire export of coal from the United Kingdom. Under these circumstances, when there were only 2,000,000 tons of the total export left for local consumption and for domestic purposes, it was absurd to say that Northumberland competed with the
    844
    districts which were generally demanding that this Bill should become law. He had heard it said that during the recent dispute in the coal trade a certain percentage of coal came from Northumberland and Durham and the Midlands, and that was an evidence of competition. It was absurd to tell the Committee that because, during the prevalence of an abnormal state of things such as existed during that dispute, coal was brought from Northumberland and Durham into the Midland districts that was an evidence that those districts had ordinarily to face the competition of Northumberland and Durham. Indeed, to advance such arguments savoured of an attempt to impose on the Committee, though he must do his hon. Friend the justice of saying that he did not think he had any such intention.
    MR. ROBY: I merely instanced the case as showing what might occur—that Northumberland and Durham could, if they chose, compete with other parts of the United Kingdom.
    MR. FENWICKagreed that it might occur in an entirely abnormal state of affairs such as was brought about by the great coal strike, but denied that it occurred under normal conditions. Over and over again he had called the attention of the leaders of the men in the Federation districts to their own statements to the effect that the northern counties did not compete with them; and when he again quoted those statements at the Birmingham Conference in July last year not a single one of his friends ventured to get up and contradict him. What were those statements? Again and again during the coal dispute, when the owners advanced the argument that it was owing to the competition of Durham and Northumberland that they were driven to seek for a reduction of wages, the reply was made by his friends, the leaders of the men in the Federated districts, that Durham and Northumberland in no way competed with the coalowners of those Federated districts. Returning to the question of foreign competition, he would, in order to show how real and tangible was the danger, call the attention of the Committee to certain facts which any hon. Member could verify in the Library. There they would find, from evidence given before a Royal Commission, that in 1883 the output in

    845
    the United Kingdom was 45 per cent, greater than that of France, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Japan, Russia, and the United States all combined. What were the facts 10 years later? In 1892–3, although in the interim the output in the United Kingdom had increased by more than 20,000,000 tons, we were 69 per cent, below the combined output of the countries to which he had referred. That was to him a very serious and a very important question, representing as he did a district 80 per cent, or more of the produce of which was sent abroad, and had to compete with the produce of the countries of which he had spoken. He really thought the Amendment which had been moved by his hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil afforded them on the question a reasonable modus vivendi—a fair compromise on a plain question. He knew, of course, that those who took the position he held were very frequently misrepresented both by other public men and by writers in the public Press. It was only a few days before that he took up a Loudon journal, in which he was not a little surprised to find himself described as a vehement and unqualified opponent of the eight hours day; while another London paper a few days ago described him as a violent and uncompromising opponent of the movement. He did not know what other people thought of him, but he had never been disposed to regard himself as violently opposed to an eight hours day or to a legislative eight hours day, for he had never been one of those who declared that Parliament had no right or authority to interfere with the hours of adult labour. He had treated the question they were considering as one of practical politics, and from the point of view of the practical effect it would be likely to have upon the district which he had the honour to represent, and the interests of which he was charged to protect and defend. He did not feel called upon to define for the thousand and first time his position in relation to the matter, but it was practically the same as that which he told his constituents that he held in 1887, when the question first came before them. On that occasion, after pointing out to the miners present at a large meeting in his own county the difficulties that would have to
    846
    be encountered in the event of an eight hours day being forced upon them, he defined his own position by saying, as he said now, that if they were prepared to accept the responsibilities and to face all the consequences that might follow such an important change as the Bill involved to their own district, he for one would not be found to stand in the way of its passing; hut practically his position in reference to the question had always been one in favour of local option, and he was glad to find that in that opinion he was strongly supported by evidence which was given before the recent Royal Commission on Labour. One or two instances he would like to bring briefly before the House, and his extracts should be taken from the evidence of gentlemen who could not be said to be in any way prejudiced against the adoption of a legal eight hours day. He would first take the testimony of one who had taken a very active part in the labour movement, and who was a very firm and fervent advocate of the legal eight hours day—Mr. Tom Mann. A question was put to him by the hon. Member for Morpeth to the following effect:—"You also spoke," said the hon. Member,
    "of trade and local option, and I under stand from that that, even in connection with the same trade, where through certain local circumstances there may be a desire to be exempt from any system, whatever it might be, you would allow there an exemption as to the eight hours?"
    Mr. Mann's reply was—
    "I have not even proposed that they should be put to the trouble of asking for exemption. I have proposed a plan whereby those who desire it must ask for it."
    Then this question was put by the hon. Member for one of the divisions of Leeds—
    "The plan which you suggest of local option and trade option combined would obviously give greater elasticity than a uniform eight hours Act?"
    and the reply was—
    "Yes."
    Then in answer to another question Mr. Mann added—
    "I have said do not cover the whole trade— in order to give this requisite elasticity I should be content with covering the district."
    And that was practically all that was asked for in the Amendment—that there

    847
    should be given to the district the right of option either to come within the provisions of the Bill or to refuse to do so if the colliers of that district thought their interests would be in any way jeopardised by the enforcement of those provisions in that particular district. He would like to take another example or two from the evidence given by his hon. Friend the Member for West Ham. The hon. Member for Leeds put this question—
    "If it could be proved that the mining industry in any particular district would be seriously prejudiced by the establishment of an eight hours day—so seriously prejudiced that many of the collieries in that district would have to be closed—would you, nevertheless, insist upon and press for a legal eight hours day?"
    The reply was in the negative. "If," went on the hon. Member for Leeds—
    "it could be shown that the economical result of it would be disastrous in certain districts, you would abandon your advocacy of an Eight hours Bill?"
    The reply was—
    "I should meet the case in the way in which similar difficulties are met under the Coal Mines Regulation Act. There are certain clauses of that Act from which exemption can be obtained on application to the Home Secretary, and if it could lie shown, and the miners in any given district declared by a majority of their members, that the operation of the Act would injure them and their trade, I would give them power to obtain exemption from the Eight Hours Act so long as it was that way."
    And that was all which they who suggested the Amendment asked for. So long as they were convinced, and the miners of the North of England were convinced, that it would be injurious to them and detrimental to their interests to have the provisions of such an Act as that forced upon them, they desired that they should have the power to free themselves from its injurious consequences. The Member for Leeds went on—
    "But I am speaking now, not of a trade, but of a district."
    —for he was careful, evidently, to distinguish between trade option and local option. My hon. Friend said—
    "Yes, I know, but in the case of the miners—not that I believe that any disastrous results such as are anticipated would follow, but in order to obtain our Eight Hours Bill for the benefit of these districts which at present work unduly long hours—I would be prepared seriously to consider a proposal of that kind."
    848
    Still more important is the reply given by my hon. Friend to a question addressed o him by my hon. Friend and colleague the Member for Morpeth, who asked—
    "Suppose you have a body of men who are fairly well organised, and who, after considering the subject very fully, have come to the conclusion that an Eight Hours Bill would be very injurious to them, would you enforce an Act of the kind upon them regardless of their wishes and opinions?"
    The reply was—"I would not." Thus he had found in the testimony of the two witnesses he had cited strong support of the opinion which he personally held, and which he had stated to the Committee. It was their belief, their sincere belief, in the North of England, that the provisions of the Bill, if they were universally and u informally applied, would injure their trade and their interests; and here again he might call to his aid the testimony of his hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, who, in a recent article in The Scottish Leader, pointed out in unmistakeable terms that the establishment of an universal miners' eight hours would mean
    "the breaking up and upheaval, so far as the Counties of Durham and Northumberland are concerned, of old and long-established customs."
    That, he thought, was a fair statement of what would be the effect of the Bill if its provisions were forced upon the whole mining industry. He thought the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil met all reasonable and legitimate requirements, and afforded to districts which honestly and sincerely believed that their interests would suffer by the enforcement of the provisions of the Act, an opportunity of freeing themselves from its injurious consequences. He did hope the Committee would seriously pause before rejecting such a reasonable proposal as had been placed before it, and he again expressed his deep regret that the promoters of the Bill should, before they had had an opportunity of listening to arguments for the Amendment, have closed their minds and have come to a determined conclusion that, whatever the case for local option might be, they would rather reject the Bill than accept it with such a principle.
    MR. WRIGHTSON ()said, he had listened with very

    849
    great interest to the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck, because it was in that division that his own interests lay. The effect of an Amendment which was proposed and agreed to at an earlier part of the evening rather, as he considered, altered the scope of the Bill, and made it an experimental one. The Bill was now to terminate at the end of December, 1899, and as this was the case, he would ask the Committee to deal with the experiment in the ordinary way in which prudent men usually dealt with experiments, and that was, to limit the area of the experiment in such a way that the danger might not be incurred of wrecking a great deal of the trade of this, country. With regard to the present Amendment, he supported it from the point of view of a Northumberland coalowner, because he was convinced that the Bill if passed would largely reduce the trade of the county. About 80 to 90 per cent, of the coal raised in Northumberland was exported. Therefore, if the cost of raising their coal were increased, as it certainly would by this Bill, they would be handicapped in a most serious way in their exports of coal. It was quite a different thing in the midland counties. The midland counties might be quite justified in making this experiment, but an experiment of this kind in Northumberland might be disastrous. The right course would be to try the experiment within the area which sent representatives in favour of the Bill. They in Northumberland would be most willing to look on and see how it worked, and if by December 1899 it had been a success in the districts in which it was tried, they might then be disposed to consider whether the area should be extended, and the Bill made permanent. There were many reasons why Northumberland should be so exempted. The county differed from other districts in that it had no manufactories amongst the collieries. It was true that there were manufactories on the Tyne, but they could be served equally well from the County of Durham. The fact that 80 to 90 per cent, of their saleable coal was exported made it peculiarly necessary that the effect of any change which would lead to increased foreign competition should betaken into account,
    850
    He had mentioned that he now looked upon the Act as an experimental one, and he might be in Order in drawing attention to the failure of another experiment on very similar lines which had just been announced. On the 9th of this month a deputation from the East End of Loudon was introduced to Lord Spencer for the purpose of urging that contracts for the construction of ships of the Royal Navy should be given to the shipbuilding yards of the Thames.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The Question here is whether a majority of miners shall decide whether the Act shall be enforced in their district.
    MR. WRIGHTSONsaid, that of course he bowed to the Chairman's ruling, but he had thought he was in Order, as he was merely pointing out that by a previous Amendment the Bill had become an experimental measure, and that another like experiment had so utterly failed that it did not encourage them to make further experiments in that direction. He trusted he had said enough to draw attention to the fact that an experiment which was proposed by certain so-called Labour Members representing Metropolitan Divisions had utterly failed, and that now they were asking that the Admiralty should give orders on the Thames, because it was found that owing to that experiment having failed such orders could not be obtained by legitimate competition. He would point out, with regard to the effect of the Bill in Northumberland and Durham, that the increase of the cost of coal which would assuredly take place after the passing of the measure would affect other industries of the district. Durham and Cleveland were the largest centres of the iron and steel industries in the world; coal was largely employed in those industries, and he hoped the Committee would not forget that any increase in the cost of coal must necessarily largely increase the cost of the steel and iron produced in the district. There was an enormous amount of competition on the Continent for orders, and he could assure the Committee that merchants of the City of Loudon were giving their orders to a very serious extent to the Continent, and they were orders which had to be paid for largely by English money. We must on no account carry any legislation which

    851
    would so raise our cost that we should put ourselves out of position to compete with foreigners. It was well known that with the hostile tariffs which were placed against the admission of English goods into Belgium and Germany that the Belgians and Germans were able to undersell us in our markets, because they sacrificed part of the large profits which they made in the articles supplied for their own home consumption, and lowered the cost when they had to export their productions in competition with us. What with the advantage which protective tariffs gave to these countries, what with the fact that our day of 8, 8½, or 9 hours had to compare with their day of 11½ hours or 13 from the time the men entered the factory to the time they left it, what with the fact that they had lower wages also; if they added another difficulty by increasing the cost in this country they would sacrifice the position they had held of being the greatest manufacturers of the world. Up to this time there had been a great reluctance on the part of civil engineers in this country to sub-letting work to Belgium and Germany, on the ground that the quality of their workmanship was not equal to ours; but he had ascertained from civil engineers of prominence in this country, who had been obliged to place their orders in those countries, that the quality now produced by the Germans and the Belgians was quite equal to what we had been producing. Therefore, he submitted that at a time like this, when competition had become so keen, it was absolutely necessary that the House should refuse to countenance any legislation which would add one iota to the cost of our production.
    MR. S. WOODS ()said, the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Fenwick) charged them with not approaching this question of local option with an open mind. They did not approach it with an open mind simply because it struck at the vital part of the Bill, that it would vitiate the whole principle upon which the measure was founded, and that if this local option clause were to pass nine-tenths of the miners of this country would be in a thousand times worse position than they were at present. The hon. Member for
    852
    the Wansbeck Division complained that the supporters of the Bill had not waited until the facts were before the House. But they had been familiar with the facts for the last three years, and the very same arguments that were used by the hon. Member were used on the Second Reading of the Bill and had been urged again and again. The contention of the supporters of the Amendment was that some particular coal-mining districts would be seriously affected, if the Bill became law, by foreign competition. Not a single word, however, had been said as to the action of this Amendment with respect to local option in causing one district to compete with another. The Amendment, it was clear, would put districts into a very unequal position with regard to competing one with another, and local option of this character would be injurious to the whole body of miners. As to what had been said with reference to the effect it was alleged the Bill would have in increasing foreign competition, he would point out that during the 16 weeks' lock-out of the miners less than 2,000 tons of coal were imported into this country. That was an illustration of how far they were affected by foreign competition. What he was most struck about in regard to the opposition to the Bill was that it came from districts where the men were working 7 and 7½ hours a day. He could have understood the Amendment if it had come from the counties where these men were kept going to the extent of 11 hours a day. But the fact was, that where long hours were worked the men were in favour of this Bill. He believed that this measure ought to apply equally to all miners and to all employers, and that it would be very unfair to allow a body of employers in one portion of the coal-fields to work their men 10 or 11 hours a day, and at the same time to legislate so that other employers could only work their men eight hours a day. The Mover of the Amendment set out by remarking that they had not proved that the miners of this country desired this Bill without the Amendment. He thought it was self-evident that there was not the slightest doubt but that the preponderating majority of the miners of this country had not two opinions, and had decided that there should be no local

    853
    option or exemption from the operation of the Act. He was not sure whether, if they looked to Northumberland and Durham, they would find that in either of those counties there was a majority in favour of this Amendment. He knew that last year, when he moved the Second Reading of this Bill, he quoted some statistics given by the secretaries from Durham and Northumberland before the Royal Commission on Labour, showing that if every man had been allowed to vote the result would have been in favour of the Bill.
    MR. J. WILSON (): Every man in the mines of the County of Durham is allowed to vote in every ballot that is taken.
    MR. WOODS: The difficulty is that the boys are not allowed to vote.
    MR. J. WILSON: I am compelled, for the character of the county, to say that that is not exactly correct.
    MR. WOODS(continuing) said, he thought, according to the statement of Mr. Patterson before the Labour Commission, and of Mr. Young, that the boys under 16 were not allowed to give a vote. This Bill would affect a large number of boys who were now working 10 and 10½ hours a day.
    An hon. MEMBER: How many boys?
    MR. WOODSsaid, that information on this point could be got from his previous speech reported in Hansard.
    THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. J. LOWTHER)said, he thought it was very undesirable to carry out controversy in this way.
    MR. WOODS,proceeding, said, that reference had been made to a letter from the right hon. Member for Midlothian. The reference was made by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, and he fancied the impression was conveyed to the House that the opinion of the Midlothian miners was in favour of the local option clause. The leader of the Midlothian miners, who waited upon the late Prime Minister last year, stated, however, that almost to a man in that constituency the miners were against the local option idea and in favour of the Bill as it stood. The Mover of the Amendment said the Bill would bring
    854
    about a great amount of inequality and disturbance in some districts if the local option clause were not carried. That was the very principle underlying their conduct. What they said was that matters were unequal now and unfair; and what they wanted to do was to put every employer in the same position and give them equal facilities for competing in the markets of the world. Who were the advocates of this Bill. They recognised amongst them some of the largest colliery owners in the country. What evidence was given before the Royal Commission on Labour from Wales and Scotland, and some parts of England and from districts to which reference had been made? Almost the unanimous verdict of these men was that they were opposed to the local option idea, and in favour of eight hours from bank to bank. One thing struck him with great force, and that was that most of the opposition to the Bill as it now stood, and its strongest opponents, came from Members sitting on that side of the House. That was very remarkable if they made a comparison of what took place at the beginning of the year and what had taken place to-night. They were discussing at the beginning of last year the Home Rule Bill, and he found that those who wanted to put local option into this Bill were those who were amongst the most strenuous opponents to the insertion of the local option clause for Ulster. He contended that this Amendment would be very unfair in its application, and he would mention here that the employers in the Midland Counties were as strongly opposed to local option as the miners themselves; and he would ask whether it would be fair, in the face of the united opinion of employers and employed, that the House should carry local option into the Bill. Hon. Members would find in this Amendment something that had been overlooked, and that was the machinery which was to be established to carry it into operation. He knew the hon. Member had another Amendment on the Paper to the effect that there should be a ballot taken every three years as to whether the men wished to be exempted from the operation of the Bill; but he asked whether the House would commit itself to the establishment of such machinery as would

    855
    be required to carry out a ballot every three years. It must be evident to everybody that such a proceeding would create perpetual friction, and they would have one part of the British coal-fields working eight hours a day, another part working 9 hours a day, and still another part working 10 hours a day; and every three years this state of things would be reversed. He thought this Amendment was one of a most harmful character, and one that could not be put into operation without the greatest difficulty. The promoters of the Bill hoped the Committee would support them in maintaining the principle of the measure, which was carried by a majority of 87 this year. They felt sure that the gloomy forebodings of some of the hon. Members who had spoken would never be fulfilled. Every question of an understood or economic character discussed in that House for the past 50 years had been met with the same arguments, but none of the adverse and disastrous results predicted had come about. They had shortened the hours of labour in many instances, giving the people more leisure and a higher rate of wages, without producing any evil; and in this case he hoped the House would not be afraid of maintaining the principle of a practical and useful Bill, which would bring good to many and harm to none.
    MR. LECH ()said, that speaking for those whom he represented, he found it difficult to say which was the more obnoxious—the Amendment or the Bill in its present shape. If they reconciled themselves to the fact that the House of Commons had committed itself to the principle of interfering with adult male labour, he was afraid that all that remained for them to do was to consider how this principle was to be enforced. That being the case, his opinion was that local option was preferable to the hard rigid rule which the Bill proposed to establish. It had been admitted by those who supported the Bill and by those who most strongly opposed the Amendment that the particular circumstances of the case varied considerably in different localities, and that the difference of time required to get out a given quantity of coal varied in different parts of the country. What stronger argument than that could be adduced in
    856
    favour of the fairness of allowing the miners in the different parts of the country to decide themselves what would be a fair day's work? Surely if there was one question more than another on which a man of ordinary intelligence was fitted to give an opinion, it was that of deciding the number of hours which it was to his best advantage to work. The Labour Representatives did not consider, however, that the miner had any right to give an opinion on the matter at all, although, curiously enough, they considered him in turn to be the best judge of the time that a third party should or should not be allowed to work. They might, in his opinion, quite as justly deny that a man had a right to eat his dinner because his neighbour had been unable to enjoy his breakfast. The object of the Bill was not to reduce the hours of labour so much as to reduce the amount of the output of coal. He did not believe that there were any representatives of the miners who were not in the House or who were Parliamentary candidates who were in favour of the eight hours from bank to bank. There were doubtless only some miserable 500 or 600 coalowners, on the one hand, whilst there were on the other some 500,000 or 600,000 votes to be obtained from the miners. Moreover, it was said that the wretched owners were divided among themselves on the question. The division of opinion among the owners was due to the fact that the owners of Durham and Northumberland thought one way, whilst the other owners thought the other. He had come to the conclusion that if he voted for local option he should be striking a blow at the district he represented, whilst if he voted against it he should be doing an injustice to other districts. In these circumstances he felt that, as an honest man, he had no course open to him but to refrain from voting either way.
    MR. W. ALLEN ()said, the coalowners were supporting this Amendment because if it were adopted the case of the boys in the Durham and Northumberland mines would have to be given up. The hon. Member for Northumberland warned them not to interfere with the customs of the northern counties, and his speech would have been rather convincing if

    857
    they did not reflect what those customs were. But these customs were that the hewers worked 7 or 7½ hours, while the boys were kept working 10 or 10½ hours. It might be said that the work of these boys was comparatively light, but he believed it was just as hard work as anybody could do, and it was work which had to be done by the boys just at the time when they were developing and before they had got their full strength; and it seemed to him, if they accepted this Amendment, and Northumberland and Durham were allowed to contract out of the Bill, they would be permitting these boys to be driven and worked almost as galley slaves, which was an iniquity which the House of Commons would never tolerate.
    MR. J. WILSON (): The hon. Gentleman's statement is most unfair and unjust to the men of Northumberland and Durham, of whom he is speaking.
    MR. W. ALLENsaid, that the work of the boys employed as hand putters was the hardest that could be conceived. They had to work in a stooping position in narrow and ill-ventilated passages at a time of life when they were not fully developed. He repeated that they were driven and worked like galley slaves.
    MR. J. WILSON (): I deny that.
    MR. W. ALLENsaid, that these boys worked as hard as any men could do, and it was most unjust that they should be made to do such work for such a number of hours.
    MR. J. WILSON (): I deny that they are worked like galley slaves.
    MR. W. ALLENsaid, these boys worked as hard as any men could do in an ill-ventilated place for over 10 hours a day, and it was most unjust that they should be made to do such work for such a number of hours. Injustice would also be done to those connected with the mines in other parts of the country if the Amendment was accepted. The hon. Baronet the Member for Durham, when introducing a deputation the other day to Lord Salisbury, stated that the Durham men were practically united on this question. But in the ballots which
    858
    had been taken a great number of the men abstained from voting, and did not seem to care very much one way or the other. Under all the circumstances he should certainly vote against the Amendment.
    SIR J. PEASEsaid, that whilst he did not doubt the ability of the North Country collieries to face this question, they would, if the Bill were passed as it now stood, have to face it at great loss of labour amongst their workpeople. There was not a finer set of boys than those employed in the mines of Durham and Northumberland. It was true they worked longer hours than the men, but they were not working the whole of the 10 hours that they were below ground. They worked practically about 7½ hours. Some lads had, no doubt, very hard work, but the question was whether they were suffering from it, and the Health Returns showed that they were not; neither was there a single complaint from the Government Inspectors. He asked the Committee whether it was reasonable to follow the advice of his hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. Woods), and because one fox had got its tail cut off in the trap, that every other fox should have his tail cut off. The real point which they had to consider in the trade and to look at in the interests of their men was, Would there be employment for the men under the altered circumstances, and would they be able to preserve their trade? He thought that in two minutes he could show the Committee why he held they ought to have local option, and why they believed they would be injured by the Bill. They would, if the Bill passed, have to provide two shifts of boys, and they could not get two sots of boys to begin with. If they had two shifts, each must either work at a less price, or if they got the same price they increased the expenditure, and this must greatly increase the cost of production. He stated on the Second Beading that Northumberland and Durham objected to be placed in the same category as districts which were not affected by foreign competition and by the iron trade, which was at present utterly unproductive. Belgian girders had been put up not far from the House of Commons, and during the present unfortunate moulders' strike

    859
    castings were coming from abroad in considerable quantities. Competition was thus at their very doors, and in the iron trade they could not lay out a single sixpence for any increased cost of coal. The Bill would therefore be attended with the utmost and gravest mischief. Half the Cleveland furnaces were now using Spanish ore, and if the Bill passed the increased cost of Cleveland iron, amounting to 2s. 6d. per ton, would probably drive the whole of the furnaces to use Spanish ore, on which it was acknowledged there was a less margin of loss—and in some cases a profit. It would, therefore, be madness for the Committee to say to Durham and Northumberland that they must be bound by Act of Parliament to work eight hours a day when they preferred other arrangements which suited them better. He did not hesitate to say that if the Bill became law the firm with which he was connected would have to lay in three out of the 11 collieries which they owned, and thus 700 or 800 men, with their wives and families, would be thrown out of employment. They had heard a great deal of agricultural depression. If the people engaged in the coal and iron and kindred industries were kept well employed, instead of having work taken from them by legislation of this kind, there would be more flour and more meat taken in every cottage, and that would produce a very different state of things in agriculture. The miners were well able to take care of themselves, and why should Parliament interfere with them by legislation which was perfectly uncalled for? So long as they had to look to foreign trade, as they had to in the North, they could not handicap themselves by such legislation as this. He had represented a mining constituency for many years, and the only question he had been asked in connection with this matter was, Would he vote in favour of the miners being free to make any arrangements they liked? He would not detain the Committee any longer, and he would only say, in conclusion, that he should not have spoken so strongly on the subject as he had done if he had not felt that the policy of this Bill was a fatal policy.
    MR. C. M'LARENwished to say a few words on behalf of the coalowners
    860
    —of whom he was one—of the Midland district. If this Amendment were carried the Miners' Federation, which was all-powerful in the Midland district, would put the provisions of the Bill into force. If they were to believe hon. Members who had spoken for Durham and South Wales, the Bill would not be put into operation in those districts; so that at the very outset enormous differences and inequalities would be imported into the industry. Everybody knew that at the present time colliery owners were happy if they could make 6d. a ton profit on their coal, and he found that 1d. a ton was the lowest limit which they could put upon coal as the effect of this Bill. If this. Bill passed as it stood, the cost of getting coal in the Midlands would be at least 1d. a ton of an increase, and in many cases the increase would be from 6d. to 8d. a ton. In Derbyshire, South Yorkshire, and Nottinghamshire they had coal centres which sent a very large quantity of coal to London. They were, as everybody knew, in very close competition with the Tyne. During the last 12 months the Tyne had put a larger quantity of coal into London at the expense of the Midlands than ever they did before. If, therefore, this Amendment were carried, so great would be the restriction which would be put on the output of the Midlands, that he had no hesitation in saying that the whole of the London Trade from Nottinghamshire and South Yorkshire would be destroyed. It would be absolutely impossible for the Midland owners to send a ton of coal to London. But London was not the only market for the Midlands. They sent an enormous amount of coal to the Eastern Ports for shipment to the Baltic, to France, and to other parts of the world, and that coal was also in direct competition with Durham and Northumberland. If the hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Pease) was right, and they were now at a point at which it was difficult to compete with the foreigner in the export of coal, it was perfectly clear that if this Amendment were carried, and the Midlands were placed in a disadvantageous position with regard to Durham and Northumberland, they could not expect to export any more coal from Derbyshire or South Yorkshire. There was the

    861
    question of gas contracts, and there was also the question of railway contracts, which, as everybody knew, were of enormous importance to the Midlands, and if they were to be handicapped not merely with the foreigner, but in their competition with two such important districts as Durham and Northumberland, he ventured to say the effect of this Amendment would be destruction to that trade. Supposing Derbyshire adopted the Bill and South Yorkshire refused to adopt the Bill. He would undertake to say the effect of this course would be that South Yorkshire would sell every ton of coal to the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Company, the Great Northern Railway Company, and the Midland Railway Company, consumed in that county, and that Derbyshire would have nothing left to sell. He saw the possibility of au annihilation of a large portion of the trade of these counties if the Amendment was carried. And the worst of it would be, that no district would know what was going to happen next. This Amendment, by a provision which stood lower down on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Merthyr, provided for a ballot to be taken every three years. What was to be the position of the coal-owner in Nottinghamshire six mouths before the period of expiration? His contract for gas coal was to go for a period of 12 months in advance, or his railway coal contract had to go for the same period, and under the terms of the Amendment, taken together with the provision for the ballot, he would lie utterly unable to know what price to put upon it. He did not want to say anything on the side of the miners' view. That had been very ably represented that night by those Members who more particularly represented the miners, and expressed by the hon. Member for Ince; but when they had the conditions affecting the coalowners coinciding with the conditions affecting the miners, he thought the Committee ought to pause before they passed an Amendment which had far more widely reaching effects than the Committee were apt to suppose. The Bill itself, in its present form, would make a very considerable change, but the House had accepted the principle of the Bill, and he humbly submitted that that
    862
    being so it was the duty of the House now to put provisions into the Bill which would make it work with as little friction and as little injury as it were possible to conceive; and if any other hon. Member intervened in this Debate, he should be very glad to hear in what way he should propose to ensure those districts under the Miners' Federation against the unfair competition, the State-protected competition it would be under this Amendment, with the industry of Northumberland and Durham and South Wales. He hoped they would see nothing in this country of local option in trade matters as between one district and another. Surely, if they were deliberately to allow the Legislature or a Government Department to interfere in the ordinary course of trade they would be lessening all those distinguishing features of commerce which had made this country great in the past. They would tie themselves hand and foot, and he ventured to think that even if this Bill did take a step in the direction which many hon. Members opposite thought it did, as perhaps against the right principle in these matters, there was no reason why they should go further and more deeply into what might turn out to be a morass, and so clog their footsteps that any retrocession became impossible. If this Bill passed as it stood, he did not think the coal trade of this country would suffer, for districts, on an average, would be treated all alike, and he had no doubt the difficulties which their Durham friends talked about in working their pits would be counterbalanced by a considerable increase in the price of coal. He believed the working classes throughout the country were, in the main, in favour of this measure both as consumers and as miners. The difficulties of taking ballots of the men to decide as to whether a particular county should be in the Bill or should not be in the Bill were illustrated by the different Amendments which they had heard to-night as to the feeling of the men in Durham and Northumberland. If they could not on an important question of this kind really find out, to the satisfaction of all parties, how the miners of Durham and Northumberland felt he thought it was pretty plain they could not find out their opinion if this Amendment and its corollaries were car-

    863
    ried. He strongly opposed the Amendment, and he implored hon. Gentlemen who represented the employers, or hon. Gentlemen who represented the interests of miners, to pause before they voted for it, and he assured them that if they voted for it they would be doing an injury, which he was sure would be very lasting, to one of the largest and most important industries of this country.
    MR. ROBYrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
    MR. STOREY ()said, he thought the hon. Member who had just sat down had talked too much about interests and too little about things more important. For his own part, he was not concerned very much about the talk of foreign competition, nor was he troubled by the fact, which he learned from an hon. Member opposite, that all the coal-owners were against the Bill. That would be, he confessed, rather a temptation to him to vote for the Bill. But he would ask the House before it went to a vote upon this, the only important Amendment to this Bill in his opinion, to consider seriously what they were going to do, and what it was to end in. Every man who had listened to the speeches which had been made that night, and who had studied the matter outside, knew this: that if this Bill were passed in its present shape it was not the only Bill that would be passed. This Bill was but the precursor of many Bills of a similar type that were to follow until they were all hard-bound in Atlantic or Arctic ice; and instead of having free play to work out their own salvation, subject only to the limitations which human kindness imposed upon them, they would be in a position which he for one should not desire to see. If this Bill was the precursor of other Bills, would it not be a very reasonable thing, when they were settling that night or tomorrow the most important Amendment they had to settle on that Bill, that they should seriously ask themselves what were the principles upon which they were going to vote, not only on this Amendment, but all the Amendments and all the Bills that were to follow. For his part he would state to the
    864
    House clearly what were the lines upon which he should act upon this Amendment. He thought he had been all his life in favour of the limitation of the hours of labour and in favour of the demand of the poor man to have leisure to develop his higher faculties, but he had all his life preached that in his judgment that was best to be got by the action of free men acting together outside the interference of Parliament. And when he saw so many of his hon. Friends coming to Parliament and asking Parliament to adopt another method he beseeched them, and all Radicals in the House, to consider seriously what was the method upon which they were to act. What was the condition of facts that was before them that night? Here was a Bill which said to all the coalminers in all England, wherever they might be, under whatever limitations they might work—whether they were in hot or in cool pits, whether they were in hard or in soft coal, whether they had to walk two miles to the face of the coal and find it broken, or whether they could go down the pit and find fresh coal there to work; which said to every one, strong or weak, old or young, under all the conditions of getting into the pit—whether they wanted to work a longer or shorter time according to their local circumstances, "You must all work the same time. You must work not more than eight hours whether you will or no, whether you are a man with 12 children, or whether you are a bachelor. You are only to work eight hours, and no more." There were only two conditions upon which he would ever submit, as a free man, to vote for or support that. The first was: this that it should be proved to him that it was for the general interest that this should be done. If that be proved, there was the first condition he wanted. He had said that in his sober judgment the limitations of the hours of labour to eight all over the country for every working man would be for the general advantage, and therefore on that ground he had no objection to take to the present proposal. But what was the second thing he demanded? He demanded that, if they departed from the general eight hours principle and came to a specific eight hours in a specific trade, before ever they ventured to legislate in that House for that trade, he submitted

    865
    to the common sense and good judgment of the House that they ought to have behind them general concurrence and opinion amongst the persons who were engaged in that trade. Did anyone say they had got that that night? Would his hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. Woods) venture to tell him that of the hundreds of thousands of men engaged in mining in this country he had an immensely preponderating opinion, well defined and intelligent, in favour of this general proposal?
    MR. WOODS: A large majority; a very large majority.
    MR. STOREYhad not asked for that, though he would even dispute that as being the fact. But if there were absolute proof of it, he would yet put it to his hon. Friend that this proposed change would effect not merely interests and profits, but also the general well-being and life of hundreds of thousands of his fellow working men, and that before he made the change the hon. Member should be assured that the enormous preponderance of the people in that trade demanded it. The hon. Member who had just spoken—he was a coal owner—said with a sneer, "We have heard a great deal of Durham and Northumberland to-night." So the Committee had, and they could not hear about a more intelligent part of the country. He did not speak of the coal owners there or of newspaper bodies like himself; but he said of the working men of these counties that there did not exist a body of men more competent than they to give an opinion either upon general politics—well, nearly all the Members from these counties were Radical, and what could he say more than that?—or upon books, or upon the history of their country, and, above all, upon the common circumstances of their daily lives. These men had a very clear opinion on this subject. He had the means of ascertaining all round the district what they thought, and he asserted that an enormous preponderance of the intelligent workmen, the men who were accustomed to think of these things and to guide their fellow-men, said to this honourable House, "Gentlemen, you are sent to London to legislate for us according to our wishes, and our desires, unless our wishes conflict with the general
    866
    interest, and we say to you that if you choose to legislate for men who want this Bill, legislate if you like; but so long as we are satisfied that our interests and our desires are better served by the existing condition of things we beg you to refrain from interfering with, our arrangements." He would therefore say, if the Committee would have an Eight Hours Bill for those who wanted it, then in the name of freedom and in the name of common sense let them not impose it upon those who did not want it.
    MR. J. WILSON ()said, ho would not detain the Committee very long, because he gathered from the promoters of the Bill that they were desirous of taking a vote; but as one who could speak with some authority for the workmen of Durham, and who had taken some part in arranging not only for wages but for reductions of hours, he desired to add his quota to the discussion. As it appeared to be a time of soul-searching he would put himself on the altar for a minute or two. He was against State interference with the hours of adult labour all round where men could combine. He opposed, two or three years ago, a similar Bill when it was before the House, not because he was against a reduction of hours, but because he was in favour of obtaining them in the most expeditious and permanently satisfactory manner possible. He said this, because he had now to vote for a species of State interference in voting for the Amendment. But as the choice was between two evils he was going to take the lesser; as the issue was between giving a county a voice in the fixing of hours and fixing a rigid unworkable law, he would be best serving the interests of those who sent him there, and be most in harmony with their views, by voting for what he had called the lesser evil. He was one who was called an old Trades Unionist, stereotyped, fossilised, ready to be placed in some museum of antiquities and curiosities. He had always been, and was now, a believer in free and full negotiation between employer and employed. He recognised that the House had never interfered with the hours of adult labour, but only

    867
    with those of boys and juveniles in factories.
    An hon. MEMBER: And of women.
    MR. J. WILSONsaid that women were not concerned here, and he therefore left that section of workers out of consideration. He also recognised that the short hours that had come to them in the North and in Scotland had been secured and kept by Trades Organisation, and that it was only where the organisation became weak that this advantage had been lost. He therefore believed in free and full negotiation between employers and employed in preference to any rigid, fixed, unalterable law that Parliament might pass. The Committee, he was afraid, had had a rather meagre view of the trade and occupation of miners presented to them by some hon. Members; and they would forgive him when he said that no question had come before the House on which grosser ignorance had been manifested than had been shown with regard to miners and the technicalities of their work. Even the hon. Member in charge of the Bill had confessed his ignorance of these technicalities, although he no doubt had had the most complete coaching from experienced practical men. He thanked the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) for the high eulogy, not unjustified, he had expressed on the men of Durham and Northumberland. They were able to take care of themselves. When the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Allen) talked about the boys of Durham being galley slaves, he (Mr. Wilson) asked himself whether he was fully developed, for he was once one of those boys. He went down the mines when he was about 10 or 11 years of age, at a time when the working hours were three or four hours a day longer than they now were; and whether he was fully developed in brain and physique he would allow the House to say. As to the speech of the hon. Member for the Bosworth Division (Mr. C. M'Laren), he would assure him that when the owners of the Midlands sent round the hat they would be relieved in the hour of their dire distress and necessity; but he had not heard of many owners in the Midlands going into the Bankruptcy Court, and they had been
    868
    for some years in competition with Durham and Northumberland. He was confident that the hon. Member had a much greater circle of learning than he could lay claim to; but he would recommend to his careful reading that one of the Ten Commandments which said: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods." It struck him, during the whole of the hon. Member's speech, that he was coveting the commercial and industrial superiority of the owners of Durham and Northumberland. The hon. Member left out of account the idea of the promoters of this Bill that it was necessary to give miners more leisure and greater exemption from danger, and all he could say for the Bill was that it would place the owners in the Midlands in a more advantageous position than the Amendment would.
    MR. C. M'LAREN: I said nothing of the kind. I objected to local option because that would place us in a worse position. It is my hon. Friend who covets our goods.
    MR. J. WILSONunderstood that the hon. Member entered into a description of the different classes of coal—gas, railway, &c.—to show that the owners in the Midlands were in an inferior position to those of Durham and Northumberland, and argued that as they were not now able to compete with these two northern counties, local option should be refused in order that the Midland colliers should impose upon the miners of the two northern counties the rigid eight hours' day, and thus restrict their opportunity for competition. He regretted that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Allen) was not in his place, for he uttered words which, in his opinion, were unbecoming. He did not like to use harsh words about anyone, but the hon. Member's remarks about the Durham boys were untrue, and were insulting to the men of Durham. The right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. Dilke), speaking when he was surrounded by his supporters, also said that the boys of Durham and Northumberland were like galley slaves. He must repeat that such an expression was an insult, unbecoming, and uncalled-for. Did the Committee think that these were boys brought from some workhouse, sent by

    869
    Boards of Guardians to be apprenticed in the mines to bring profit to the pocket of the men? These boys were the men's own lads, their own flesh and blood. The men had, as lads, passed through the same experience, and knew exactly what was best for them, and the boys were confident that their fathers, and brothers, and kinsmen would do the best they could for them. It had been said that the boys under 16 were not allowed to vote, and some stress was laid upon the statement that the putters were below 16 years of age. But the hand-putters did not put at 16; they were young men of 18, 19, and 20. The right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, when he took his excursion down one of the northern coal mines, went with his mind biassed; and a biassed man was generally able to extract the ideas and "facts" which were in accordance with his own preconceived opinions. In the North some of the hand-putters were married men, and, in nearly every case, above 18 years of age, and were not the boys that they had been described—below 16 years of age. They were young men, and there was hardly one of them but had a vote in the ballot that was submitted upon the eight hours' question, and consequently they were not excluded from recording their ideas. If he understood the Amendment aright, it would give every boy a right to vote; it would take into its cognisance not only every man above 20, but every workman in the pit, the boys below 16 being able to turn the scale of voting; and if hon. Members thought that local option would turn the scale, why should they fear local option? For his part, he did not think they should discuss this question from the view of foreign competition. It was not before his mind, and he had never expressed any fear in that direction. He had heard it said that leaders of Trades Unions and workmen should not have any regard for the result of any legislative enactment. That was not his idea; he thought they should have full and due regard to the results of any enactment they might pass through this House or through this Committee. He believed the adoption of this resolution would be in accord with the generally expressed view of the Trades Union Congress. He saw the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Keir Hardie) opposite,
    870
    and perhaps the hon. Member, who had been already referred to, would forgive him for referring to him again. The hon. Member moved a resolution in the Trades Union Congress of 1891 to this effect: "that legislation restricting hours of labour to eight per day should be enforced in all trades and occupations, save where an organised majority of the members by ballot-voting were proved against the same." It might be thought that applied to a whole trade. Why was the majority of the trade put in that resolution?. Simply because there were divergencies and differences between the different trades, and consequently one trade did not bind another. That being the case, he said they were right in supporting this local option. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Woods) in his speech used two words for the purpose of impressing the minds of hon. Members, and these words were "unfair" and "unequal." He referred entirely to trade, but he had no word for the workmen. The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Roby) spoke about competition between districts—that was to say, that if they had a uniform Bill passed for the whole of the country they would avoid competition between counties. That idea implied there was a uniformity of conditions all over the coal mines. If they spoke about an Eight Hours Bill for the engineering trade they had a uniformity of conditions. [Cries of "No!"] He was going to tell them what it was if they would only listen before saying "No." They might take a man from the Tyne who was in an engineering works and place him in a shop in London, and the conditions surrounding him would be as nearly as possible uniform. ["No, no!"] He said, yes; the same conditions were in operation in the one shop as in the other, but they could not speak of uniformity in coal mining when nature was against them. They might as well pass an Act of Parliament to say every man should be of one stature. All nature was against them. He ventured to say that the Forest of Dean would not be able to compete with the thick seams of the Midlands, and they could not make uniform nature's conditions by any Act of Parliament; therefore the men in the various counties, knowing their own

    871
    situation, should be left to settle their differences between their employers and themselves. He would like to draw attention to one or two expressions of ignorance that had fallen from hon. Members who ought to know better, because one of the hon. Members had been a working miner and the other had become a professor by theory. The Member for Ince (Mr. Woods) had been a working miner, and in 1893, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, he said he would undertake to prove that the average time in going and returning from work in the pits was nearly a quarter of an hour each way. That was not the experience in any locality that he (Mr. Wilson) knew of. The other was the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. Dilke). The right hon. Member, speaking in the Forest of Dean, said that if every man was to be punished who should be more than eight hours below, the hours would have to be still further reduced to make it impossible that any one, even by chance, should be more than eight hours below. He (Mr. Wilson) was a miner, and when he heard expressions like those he had commiseration for the ignorance of such persons.
    SIR C. W. DILKE ()said, perhaps he might be permitted to point out that that referred to an Amendment that stood lower down on the Paper, and upon that Amendment they would have the opportunity of discussing the question.
    MR. J. WILSONsaid, it was one of the difficulties they had to meet; how were they to get the man who went down at 6 come up first except they put a ticket round his neck to show that he was the first to go down. Had the right hon. Gentleman ever been down a pit?
    SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, this showed the inconvenience of discussing the question interrogatively. He agreed with the hon. Member, and his argument was directed to that very point.
    MR. J. WILSONsaid, he wished to point out when such ignorance was manifested—[Cries of "Question!"] He thought he was speaking to the Question, and during the few minutes he had occupied the attention of the Committee
    872
    he had not diverged from the Question. If he had he begged leave to apologise to the Committee; but what he wanted to say was that when there was such ignorance in the Legislature, there was no wonder there was confusion of mind outside. Now he would appeal again to the Irish Members. If there was one part of the country where the Irish Members had strong and solid supporters it was the part he came from. He had often heard the Irish Members say that a Bill was being forced upon Ireland by the English votes and not by the Irish, and he would venture to say that if this Amendment were lost it would be lost this evening by the Irish votes. The Bill did not affect Ireland, and to throw out the Amendment would be forcing upon the English workmen a thing they did not require, and it would be done by the Irish vote. He hoped the Irish Members would hesitate before they gave the vote they did on the Second Reading. If the Bill did not interest them he would appeal to them to take a different course, and not do anything to repel those who had been their staunch supporters.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR ()said, he was surprised that the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Roby) should a short time ago have asked the Chairman to impose the Closure on this discussion, because he did not hesitate to say that from beginning to end of this Debate the argument had been entirely on one side. He could not think this Debate had continued at all too long; nay, he did not think it had continued long enough. There were a great many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen whose opinions they would have been glad to have upon this question, and he could not help thinking it was an extraordinary circumstance that upon an Amendment of this importance and character they had not had the least guidance from any Member of the Government. Upon a Bill so important as this they would have liked to know the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and they would very much have liked to have heard the Chief Secretary on this subject, upon which he held very strong views. To proceed from the Front Bench to the back, they would have been glad to hear the views of the hon. Member for Haddington

    873
    (Mr. Haldaue), as it was well known that he was opposed to the principle of the Bill, though he had heard that the hon. Member might vote against this Amendment. They would very much like to know why the hon. Gentleman proposed to vote against it. There was his right hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Courtney), who was always ready to give an impartial judgment upon every question. The right hon. Gentleman had been a Member of the Commission, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman was acquainted with this matter. Again, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. Dilke) had not uttered a word in this Debate, yet surely this was a question of sufficient motive for them to have heard what he had to say. And, lastly, the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Ham had been directly appealed to in this Debate, and he must say he trusted before the Debate came to a conclusion the hon. Member would be persuaded to stand by the answer he made or state lie had changed his opinion, and if ho had changed, why he had done so. Before he proceeded to consider the larger question raised by the Amendment of the hon. Member he should like to say a word or two on the Amendment to the Amendment that stood first in his name. The hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. D. Thomas) proposed to make the county the unit of local option. He did not consider himself that the county would be altogether a satisfactory unit to take. There was no doubt very much to be said for taking the individual colliery as the unit, but if a district was to be taken he did not think the county was the proper district; what they wanted was that it should constitute an area of similar conditions in respect to the mining industry, and he did not think they had any reason to suppose that the geographical limitation of the county would correspond exactly to the limitation of areas of similar condition. It might be that such an area would embrace more than one county, for it might be that more than one district would embrace more than one such area. He listened to the dispute between the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. D. Thomas) and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Abraham); he was
    874
    not competent to decide the merits of it, but he would assume there was in the mind of the hon. Member who opposed the Amendment just such a difference as he had described. They had one hon. Member representing South Wales moving the Amendment, and another hon. Member representing South Wales also, opposing it. He did not think the county would be a satisfactory unit for the application of local option, and, in his opinion, it would be far better to trust to the discretion of the Home Secretary, who would be guided somewhat by the districts allotted to the Inspectors of Mines, and still more by the organisations which existed among coalowners and miners. He attached considerable importance to his Amendment, and even more importance to the one following it; but of course he recognised that both were of small importance when compared with the question raised by the original Amendment, and he wished to make the point plain. He should not necessarily ask the judgment of the House on the Amendment, he had placed on the Paper, and if it were rejected he should vote with complete conviction in favour of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. D. Thomas). If his Amendment were accepted those in favour of the principle of local option could vote for the Amendment as amended. Now he came to the merits of the Amendment itself, and he should like first of all to call attention to this, that he supposed no Government would have taken upon itself the responsibility of imposing legislation of this kind without a preliminary inquiry of some kind or other. The Government had been prodigal of facilities, but they had not chosen to adopt this measure as their own, but where the Government were feared to tread the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Woods) and the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Pickard), whom they had not heard to-night, were not afraid to rush in. It was perfectly true that this question had been investigated, and very thoroughly investigated, during the last 20 years. It was not until after the Second Reading of this Bill that the Royal Commission on Labour reported, and that Report was, in a sense, adverse to this Bill in every particular; and not only that, but the chief promoters of this

    875
    Bill, who represented the miners, declined to appear before the Commission and give evidence, though they had never explained why they refused. Perhaps they might say they had no confidence in it, but, at all events, in the earlier period the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Woods) did not show any want of confidence in it, for within a few days after the appointment of the Commission the hon. Member wrote offering to give evidence. That was in April, 1891, and it was not until a month or two later, though before the Commission began to take evidence, that the representatives of the Federation of Miners wrote to say they had passed a resolution declining to appear before the Commission; declining to give evidence, information, or to help the Commission in any way; and the consequence was that they had not the advantage of hearing the evidence of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Woods), the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Pickard),or Mr. Ashton. If the Miners' Federation felt that want of confidence in the Labour Commission, and were unable or unwilling to assign any reason for it, they would not be surprised if it was inferred that they declined to have their case investigated because it was a bad one. He opposed this Bill on the Second Reading, and he did not pretend for one moment that the adoption of this Amendment would make it to him an acceptable Bill. Quite the contrary; but without some Amendment of this kind, and unless the principle of local option was introduced, this Bill would establish an intolerable tyranny, and nothing short of that. He would ask what moral right had the House to insist that the miners should carry on their work in a way different to that in which they now carried it on and with which they were perfectly satisfied? He would even go further, and begged the Committee to ask themselves whether they had got the power to enforce legislation of this kind upon districts unwilling to receive it. It must be clear to those who would look at the question impartially that the House of Commons was now being invited to enter upon an exceedingly dangerous course, of which it was impossible to foresee the end. They were told that if this Amendment were carried the Bill would be lost. Well, as
    876
    an opponent of the Bill, he did not deny that personally he should regard such a result with a considerable degree of complacency. From the standpoint of those who voted for the Second Reading of the Bill, at the same time reserving the right to vote for this Amendment, he would ask why the adoption of this Amendment would be fatal to the Bill? That was really the essential question to which they demanded a clear answer. During the Debate he had listened for an answer, and the only answer he had been able to gather was that uniformity was necessary in order to prevent competition between one district and another. He must say he had listened to the calm way in which the doctrine had been put forward, or, at all events, assumed, that it was the business of Parliament to help one district against the competition of another.
    MR. WOODSrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR(continuing) said, that surely such a doctrine as that had never before been put forward in the history of Parliament. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Woods) told them the aim of the Bill was to cure inequality by putting all upon the same footing. Had it never occurred to the hon. Member for Ince there were certain differences between one district and another, between one man and another, and that the Bill would not produce a true equality? He would also remind the hon. Member for Ince and the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Roby) that when they said, or assumed, it was the duty of Parliament to protect one district against the competition of another, that such a doctrine applied to wages as well as hours.
    It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  DISEASES OF ANIMALS [changed from "CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS)"] (re-committed) BILL.—(No. 348.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in the Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses 1 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 24.
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, his right hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin) had notice of au Amendment to this clause; perhaps the Minister in charge would consent to suspend Progress until the next day, when his right hon. Friend would be in his place.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OK AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,)said, the Amendment was inadmissible, because this was simply a Consolidation Bill. Under the circumstances he hoped the right hon. Baronet would not stop the progress of a measure which was for the advantage of an interest the good of which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) had so much at heart.
    MR. T. M. HEALY ()thought it right to say that if the Government allowed any change in a Consolidation Bill in the direction indicated by the Amendment then he should oppose the Bill. The only ground upon which the Bill could be allowed to pass was that it was a Consolidation Bill, and in no way trenched upon the existing law, but if that principle wore departed from it would become an opposed Bill to be included among those not to be proceeded with this Session.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,)hoped the objection would not be persisted in. A Consolidation Bill such as this should not be made the means of introducing a most serious amendment of the law. The Bill was much desired by those entrusted with, the administration of the law and generally by I he agricultural interest, and it would be a misfortune if anything were done to prevent its passing.
    MR. CONYBEARE ()said, he could quite understand why the Amendment should be refused to a Bill of this kind, and a similar objection would apply to a proposal he had to amend another Bill for the prevention of cruelty to children. He should certainly object to the discussion of au Amendment of the nature indicated.
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, he did not like to press the objection, but it would really make no difference if the Committee were completed to-morrow, when his right hon. Friend would be present.
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he should be present now.
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, that was not possible.
    SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, if there was any prospect of the Amendment being entertained he would not object to Progress being reported, but now if the light hon. Member for Sleaford were present the Amendment could not possibly be entertained in connection with this Bill.
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, he would not press his objection.
    Clause agreed to.
    Remaining Clauses agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

  CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOAED (IRE- LAND) BILL.—(No. 353.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
    Clause 3.
    MR. T.M. HEALYasked, would the right hon. Gentleman undertake that appointments should be made by competitive examinations?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,)said, yes; that was certainly the intention.
    Committee report Progress: to sit again To-morrow.

  PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN BILL [Lords].—(No. 342.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    MR. JOHN BURNS ()said, he was anxious to see the Bill passed; hut inasmuch as this Consolidation Bill from the Lords altered the age limit as laid down in the Act recently passed, he must object to it.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOB THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,)said, his hon. Friend was mistaken, the Bill did nothing of the kind, and if he would allow the Bill to go into Committee he would assure him on the point.
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he should certainly object to any such alteration.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he had given notice of a couple of Amendments, one of which had a bearing upon the question just raised, but he was anxious that the Bill should pass, and would do nothing to block its progress by insisting upon his right to move an Amendment. He understood that the Government would not listen to any Amendment as being contrary to the understanding in relation to a Consolidation Bill. Not objecting, therefore, to the Bill proceeding, he must insist that the age limit should not be altered.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 2.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY,)said, that upon this clause a good deal of misapprehension had arisen. By the passing of the Bill of the present Session, introduced by his hon. and learned Friend (Sir R. Webster), alterations were made upon three points in Sections 1, 5, and 6 of the Act of 1889, but no alteration was made in the age of children in respect to offences mentioned in the third section of that Act, and those parts of Clause 2 of the present Bill, which had reference to offences under the third
    880
    section of that Act, necessarily kept the age of the children as it was left by the former Act—boys under 14, girls under 16. It had been suggested to him that the Interpretation Clause in the Act of the present Session made some difference where it interpreted a child as meaning under 16; but this interpretation was to prevail except where the context otherwise required, and Section 3 of the Act of 1889 plainly and clearly set forth that boys must be under 14, and a child under 14 could not by reason of the Interpretation Clause become a child of 16. Tins point was raised before the Joint Committee. It was possible there may have been some mistake in the Act of this Session, but it would be amending and not consolidating the law unless there were inserted the words "boys under the age of 14." There was no Interpretation Clause in the present Bill, for the reason that in one place a child of 14 was spoken of, in another of 16, and in another of 11, and nowhere was the word "child" left to be interpreted as a child under 16. It would be found that the word "child" in the later clauses meant child in respect to whom an offence was charged in the earlier part of the Hill. In cases under Section 3 of the Act of 1889 would be meant boys under 14, girls under 16, and all other cases would be governed by the Act of this Session.
    MR. CONYBEAREthought the matter was not unimportant. There were eases where boys under 16 were to be permitted to be subjected to all the influences, dangers, temptations of being in a public-house at night, and so forth. From the account of the Attorney General it did appear that this matter had been considered, and that a broad line of distinction had been drawn, as he thought, wrongly, and so probably did others, but in the position that this was a Consolidation Bill only, and that of necessity it must go forward this Session, he supposed they must bow to the inevitable. If his hon. Friend the Member for Battersea did not press his desire to include boys under 16 within the protecting clauses of the Act he would not attempt to prevent the Bill passing. Still, he knew there was a strong feeling among many Members that boys up to the age

    881
    of 16 ought to be entitled to the same measure of protection as girls under 16, and if this Consolidation Bill were allowed to go forward, perhaps the Attorney General would be good enough to consider the possibility of bringing in an amending Bill next Session. There were other points to be considered, and seeing there had been so near an approach to unanimity as to the object of this legislation there would probably be no difficulty in carrying through an amending Bill.
    MR. JOHN BURNSsaid, he had only objected because it appeared to him there was an intention in the Bill, which was merely a Consolidation Bill, to alter the principle upon which the age was laid down in the Bill passed earlier in the Session. It did seem to him that the legal advisers of Her Majesty's Government might have seized the opportunity of the Lords' Consolidation Bill to make the age throughout all the clauses and for all offences 16 years. But the balance of advantage was in favour of the Bill being allowed to go through, and rather than block it he would waive all objection, but to the sympathetic mind of the Attorney General he commended the subject, and hoped he would introduce an amending Bill next Session.
    MR. ASQUTTHsaid, of course his hon. and learned Friend could give no undertaking of that kind for next Session. To adopt any other course than had been pursued with the present Bill would have been to depart from lint usual practice in regard to Consolidation Hills. The Bill accurately represented the clauses as they appeared in the Act passed in the present Session, and though personally he quite sympathised with the view expressed by his hon. Friend, and did not understand why the distinction in age should have been made, yet, however desirable it might seem to make the change, to do so would be to forsake precedent and to introduce controversial matter into what was simply a Consolidation Bill and nothing else.
    MR. T. M. HEALYasked the right hon. Gentleman whether there was any reason to expect that, with the volume of statistics, next Session they would be confronted with a repealing Act as well as this?
    MR. ASQUITHsaid, he earnestly hoped not.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 3 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 10.
    MR. ASQUITHsaid, he had an Amendment to propose to this clause; the addition of words to bring the clause into strict conformity with the existing law, the utmost care having been taken to secure that no more than this was done.
    Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 22, after the word "health," to insert the words
    "or that any offence mentioned in the Schedule to this Act has been or is being committed in respect of such a child."
    Page 9, line 25, after "aforesaid," insert
    "or that any such offence as aforesaid has been or is being committed in respect of the child."—(Mr. Asquith.)
    Amendments agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Remaining Clauses and Schedule agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  COPYHOLD (CONSOLIDATION) BILL. [Lords.]—(No. 344.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
    Clause 3.
    Verbal Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 4 to 32, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 33.
    MR. J. W. LOWTHER ()said, he had an Amendment to propose which would not involve any alteration of the law, but would bring the Bill into conformity with the existing law. The clause provided that where any money in the case of settled estates was paid in respect of enfranchisements to Trustees

    883
    then the Trustees should apply this, subject to the consent of the Board of Agriculture, in a certain way. Under the Act of 1871 such money could be expended on permanent improvements without instruction, and the object of his Amendment was to bring the money paid to Trustees from enfranchisements of copyholds into the same position as money paid under the Settled Land Act to Trustees. Therefore, he moved, in line 5, the omission of the words "subject to the consent of the Board of Agriculture," and the words down to line 20, in order to insert the words
    "in the same manner as though such were capital money arising under the Settled Land Act."
    This would involve no alteration of the law, but though he formally moved the Amendment he would not press it against the opinion of the Attorney General if he were to say that it involved an alteration of the law. He was advised on good authority that it would be simply consolidating a provision from the Settled Land Act under the terms of the Bill.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the words from "way," to end of line 20, and insert the words
    "in the same manner as though such were capital money arising under the Settled Land Act."—(Mr. J. W. Lowther.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    SIR J. RIGBYsaid, so far as he could follow the proposal he was inclined to agree with the hon. Member that to accept the Amendment would not involve an alteration of the law, but it was a somewhat complicated matter, and he desired to consider it, and the Amendment could be inserted on Report if it should be found, as ho thought it would lie found, in accordance with the statement that no change in the law would be effected thereby.
    MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid, as there had been an Amendment and therefore must be a Report to consider, he would not press the Amendment at this stage.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clauses 34 to 93, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 94.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, ho desired to insert a formal Amendment in line 38, by inserting the words—
    "and any person entitled to interest for any term of years originally granted for 99 years and upwards."
    The word "tenant" in this Bill covered the definition of his words in the existing Copyhold Act, but the word "owner" was applied in certain cases as distinct from tenant. It was intended by this consolidation to make the expression apply generally.
    Sir J. RIGBYundertook to consider this point also on Report.
    Clause agreed to.
    Remaining Clauses agreed to.
    Schedule.
    MR. TOMLLNSONsuggested that on Report it should be considered whether lines 9 and 10 should lie omitted, because in a Bill intended to apply to Copyhold Acts only it was not desirable to deal with a section of the Universities Estates Act of 1860 merely because that section related to copyholds.
    SIR J. RIGBYthought, in consolidating Acts relating to copyholds, it was desirable everything of that character should be included, but he would, however, consider it.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday.

  COAL MINES (CHECK WEIGHEK) BILL [Lords].—(No. 340.)

    SECOND HEADING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [2nd August].
    MR. ASQUITHhoped that no objection would be raised to passing this stage of a Bill which had with unanimous consent passed in another place, lie did not know that any objection had been urged to the Second Reading, and to points of detail he would give every attention in Committee.
    MR. TOMLINSONtook exception to I he provision in the second clause for the appointment of a check weigher for a term of years. This matter was important in the interest of those for whose

    885
    sake the appointment was made. Check weighers were appointed by the workmen to check the weighing of the man appointed by the employers, and it might happen that by the extension of the works the number of men employed might greatly increase, and a man who received his appointment at the instance of, say, 50 miners might not find favour with a body numbering 200. This was a point important enough to demand consideration, and the proper lime for that was on the Second Reading.
    MR. ASQUITHsaid, if any serious objection were offered to that lie would be quite prepared to drop the provision, for he did not regard it as essential. The first clause was the important part of the Bill.
    Objection being taken, Debate further adjourned till To-morrow.

  QUARRIES BILL [Lords].—(No. 341.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, he had on a former occasion mentioned a small Amendment he desired to propose, the substitution of 30 for 20. If the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to accept it he would move at once, not troubling him with reasons.
    MR. ASQUITHindicated a negative.
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, he understood that, the Bill provided that open quarries, which now were under the Factories Act and subject to the inspection of the Sanitary Authority of the district so far as fencing was concerned, should be removed from that jurisdiction and lie subjected to Regulations under the Metalliferous Mines Act, because the getting of minerals from deep quarries was attended with some danger to the workmen. Certain quarries in a country district with which he was acquainted were perhaps 30 feet deep on the side of a hill, for instance, and were used for getting chalk or stone material for roads, and occasioned no sort of danger to anyone, except when they were near a road and required fencing, which was a matter far more likely to be attended to by the
    886
    Sanitary Authority than by the Inspector of Metalliferous Mines. The object of his Amendment was to restrict the operation of the Bill to quarries 30 feet deep instead of 20, excluding the smaller quarries only used for getting chalk or stone or sand, and which would be better left under the present jurisdiction and inspection.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "twenty," and insert the word "thirty."—(Sir M. Hicks-Beach.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'twenty' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. ASQUITHsaid, it was somewhat curious that when the Bill was in another place Lord Cross took objection to the limitation of 20 feet, not, however, because he wished to substitute 30, but because he thought that 20 feet was a great deal too deep. So there was a certain diversity of counsel among authorities on the other side. He was afraid he could not assent to the substitution of 30 for 20 because—leaving out the question o' fencing—so far as quarrying for minerals was concerned, it was desirable that where a quarry had reached the minimum limit of safety, reported by experts to be 20 feet, then the Inspector should have power to enter and inspect the works in the interest and for the protection of the workmen employed. The power of the Sanitary Authority did not extend beyond requiring a quarry to lie fenced when near a highway, and the proposal in the Bill was to transfer all powers to the Inspector of Metalliferous Mines. He would be content, however, to leave with the Sanitary Authority the power to control the fencing, for he did not attach so much importance to that, and the Mines Inspectors had quite enough to do, and would not probably discharge this duty better than the Sanitary Authority did. He must, however, retain the limit at 20 feet for quarries to be subjected to inspection.
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, he did not want to stand in the way of the Bill, and all the more that he was certain that no Inspector of Metalliferous Mines would come near their chalk quarries.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to,
    Clause 2.
    MR. ASQUITH,in pursuance of what he had said, moved the omission of the words, in line 16, from "and" to "1887," thus taking out the transfer to the Inspector of the control exercised by the Sanitary Authority in regard to fencing.
    Amendment proposed, in line 16, to leave out the words from "and" to "1887."—(Mr. Asquith.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Remaining Clauses agreed to.
    Schedule.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEY ()said, it was important to know what sections were repealed, but he observed that the references in the Schedule were Sections 15 to 18, 20 to 22, and so on. Did that mean inclusive?
    MR. ASQUITHthought there was no doubt that was the meaning, but he would look into it and, if necessary, insert the word "inclusive" on Report.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS.
  Ordered, That the several Accounts and Papers which have been presented to the House in this Session of Parliament, relating to the Revenues of India, be referred to the consideration of a Committee of the whole House.
  Resolved, That this House will Tomorrow resolve itself into the said Committee.—(Mr. Secretary Fowler.)

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—
  Canal Tolls and Charges Provisional Order (No. 9) (Canals of Caledonian and North British Railway Companies) Bill,
  Changed from—
  Canal Tolls and Charges Provisional Order (No. 10) (Canals of Caledonian and North British Railway Companies) Bill.
  Canal Rates, Tolls, and Charges Provisional Order (No. 11) (Grand Canal, &c.) Bill,
  Changed from—
  Canal Rates, Tolls, and Charges Provisional Order (No. 12) (Grand Canal, &c.) Bill, with Amendments.

  LOCAL COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) [EXPENSES].
  Order for Committee thereupon read, and discharged.

  LARCENY ACT AMENDMENT BILL. [Lords].—(No. 338.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL. [Lords].—(No. 354.)
  Read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.
  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL. (No. 349.)
  Read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  RIVERS POLLUTION PREVENTION BILL.—(No. 95.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  RIVERS POLLUTION PREVENTION BILL.—(No. 95.)

    CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND) [REMUNERATION].
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of remuneration to any persons appointed or employed under the provisions of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to the Congested Districts Board for Ireland.—(Mr. T. E. Ellis.)
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (EXEMPTION FROM THE STANDING ORDER).
  MR. ASQUITHgave notice that at the next Sitting the Chancellor of the Exchequer would move—
  "That the proceedings on the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill, if under discussion at Twelve o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the provisions of the Standing Order Sittings of the House."
  MR. TOMLINSONasked, was it intended to prolong the Sitting to a late hour?
  MR. ASQUITHearnestly hoped there would be no necessity for that.
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.

Preamble
Several Lords—took the Oath.
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved,
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for copy of the Report from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, dated March 27, 1886; together with the Names of the Lords of the Committee making the said Report, and of witnesses examined and of parties heard by counsel before them."
  He said: My Lords, I believe there is no objection to this Motion. By the courtesy of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack I have been able to fix upon the precise date of the Judgment I have asked for.
  Motion agreed to.

CROWN LANDS BILL.—(No. 199.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY AND LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of ROSE-BEKY): This is a Bill, my Lords, which practically explains itself. It is only to give certain detailed facilities to the Commissioners of Woods, Forests, and Mines, founded on the recommendations of the Committee of the House of Commons on Crown Revenues of 1890. This Bill has itself been sifted by a Committee of that House of 1894. I shall be happy to answer any question about it, but I do not think it necessary to go into the details of the scheme.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Rosebery.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

NEW INLAND REVENUE AFFIDAVITS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDasked the Lord President of the Council whether copies of the new Inland Revenue affidavits, with the proposed schedules, would be laid on the Table of the House? He said that, in consequence of the new and onerous obligations laid upon executors by the new Finance Act, he thought it desirable that publicity should be given to the Interrogatories prepared for them by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I shall be quite prepared to lay them on the Table if the noble Duke will move for them.

TENANTS ARBITRATION (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 203.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  EARL SPENCER,in moving the Second Reading, said: My Lords, not unfrequently I have had to address your Lordships on the difficult subject of Irish land. I know that it is not easy to anyone in this House to discuss the question, more particularly to any one of the Party to which I have the honour to belong. In approaching this subject, I desire to avoid anything which would lead to bitterness or ill-feeling. I feel that, the Bill which I have to introduce is one which heals rather than inflicts wounds, and therefore I wish to approach the subject which I have in hand in a spirit of conciliation. No one who has been in this House, particularly those who have had to take part in discussions on the Irish Land Question, can avoid being struck with this—that we cannot approach this subject with any hope of doing justice to it if we start from the standpoint of English or Scotch land legislation. The Land Code in Ireland is entirely different from that which prevails in those parts of the United Kingdom. No doubt over 30 years ago an attempt was made to legislate for Ireland in the same way as England has been legislated for, and to extend the principle of contract in Ireland which has been, on the whole, so successful in England and Scotland.

  655
  But all the great attempts which, have been made to deal with this question since 1870 have followed a different course. Legislation has been framed—and there has been a necessity for it—on the customs and laws which prevailed in Ireland. There is another point of difference to which I must refer, and that is that the industry of agriculture in Ireland has for its surroundings quite a different state of things from that which prevails in the Sister Country. Unfortunately, there has been for many years past in Ireland a feeling of want of confidence on the part of the people in the laws which regulate that country; and too often the consequence has been that, when unfortunate differences have prevailed between landlord and tenant, and when the landlord has had to exercise his legal rights, agrarian disturbance has arisen of a very serious kind. I deplore that state of things. I wish that we could legislate for Ireland as we have legislated in the past for England and Scotland. I regret that we are obliged to make this exception for various reasons—on account of differences in the original law, differences in customs, and differences which exist in the social and political condition of Ireland. But while I regret that, I feel that we have been right in the mode in which we have treated this subject, and it is therefore for this reason that I must appeal to your Lordships most earnestly to look at this question not from the English or Scotch point of view, but from the Irish point of view, in order to deal with the difficulties which exist in Ireland. The legislation for Ireland has been of two kinds. We have had legislation of a permanent character, and we have also had legislation of a temporary character. Legislation of a permanent character is to be found in the Land Acts of 1870, 1881, and 1887; and in the Purchase Acts of 1885 and 1891. Legislation of a temporary kind has been found in the Arrears Act of 1882, in certain clauses of the Act of 1887, giving power to revise judicial rents; and notably in a section of the Act of 1891, to which I shall have presently to refer. At the outset I wish to say this with regard to the landlords of Ireland. I am not one of those who condemn the whole body of Irish landlords. On the contrary, I believe there is a considerable number of landlords in
  656
  Ireland who are, and have been, as anxious to be just in their dealings with their tenants as have landlords on this side of the Irish Channel. But, unfortunately, there have been other landlords who, either from necessity or unwillingness, have not followed that course. Some of them may have been driven into this course by the poverty of their position, by the necessity of extracting the last farthing from their tenants. But others have been actuated by a different spirit, have been unwilling to acknowledge any grievance on the part of their tenants, and have turned a deaf ear to the advice given to them by their friends and neighbours. To those persons are due, I am afraid, the exceptional measures of legislation which have been passed, and which have pressed on all landlords in Ireland, whether good or bad. This Bill which I have to introduce necessarily comes under the category of temporary measures. It is one of those temporary measures which have been brought in owing to some sudden emergency caused either by an unusually bad season, or by some social or political agitation in the country. It is necessary to establish the fact that such an emergency exists before you can justify the introduction of a measure of a temporary character; and I shall endeavour at once to show that there is an emergency of this kind at present. Let us look at Ireland with regard to evictions. We find that there is a very largo body of evicted tenants in various parts of the country. The number may be roundly stated at 4,000. These tenants are either scattered about on different estates and in different parts of the country, or are collected in groups, owing to the exceptional measures which have been taken on one estate or another. Now what is the condition of these men? Their condition is miserable in the extreme. They are not only very poor, but they have practically no homes. The live either in the houses of their friends, near to their own farms, or they live in miserable huts which have been erected for them. Now, my Lords, the first question we have to ask is: Have these tenants a grievance, and, if so, ought that grievance to be remedied? I say distinctly that they have a grievance. Some of the tenants are men who left their farms before the Act of 1881, which established a tribunal for the

  657
  fixing of fair rents. Others left their farms before the Act of 1887, which included leaseholders within the operation of the Land Acts. Others there are who left their farms owing to serious agitation in the country. Some left their farms after the no-rent agitation, and others left after the starting of the Plan of Campaign, to which I shall presently refer. It is fair to point out that many of these men would probably have been able to battle against the difficulties which surrounded them had the enactments which were carried subsequently to their eviction been in force at the time. Naturally when this is the case there is very serious discontent owing to their grievances against the laws of their country. In my opinion it is right to sift these questions and these cases by an authoritative tribunal. I believe that while you have these large bodies of men in different parts of the country, full of discontent and grievances, you have a serious danger to the peace of the country. Let me examine this latter part of my proposition a little more fully. We believe that the existence of these largo bodies of men in every part of the country, in sight of their former farms, and often in districts which are extremely liable to disaffection, with, in some cases, the land overgrown with weeds and the houses and buildings in ruins and going to decay, and in other cases with new tenants occupying the laud of the old ones—occupying it, no doubt, with a perfectly legal title, but at the same time occupying it, as it must be borne in mind, in the teeth of the feelings of those who have been turned out, and who are living around them—we believe that that state of affairs is dangerous to the peace of the country. We have often heard in this House of particular districts in Ireland where there have been outrages, boycotting, and disturbances. We have heard of these in Cork, Kerry, Limerick, and Tipperary, and a very large number of the evicted tenants remain in those counties. In those four counties, roughly speaking, there are over 900 tenants who had been evicted from their farms. In passing, I would say that when I referred roughly to 4,000 tenants who had been evicted, I did not refer to all the tenants who have been evicted throughout the country, many of whom have
  658
  since been restored to the farms from which they were evicted. I only refer to those who are not now occup3'ing land of their own in the country. For the purposes of this Bill we take the number from May 1, 1879—the date mentioned in Clause 13 of the Act of 1891, passed by the late Government. Well, I maintain that this number of evicted tenants, with their grievances, which they feel so strongly, are so many mines of powder in various parts of the country, and that any spark of discontent may cause an explosion at any time. This is not a question which must be dealt with by a Liberal Government particularly; it is a question which, maintain, demands, and will demand, the attention of any Government which maybe in power. I believe if the noble Marquess opposite succeeded to power to-morrow he would have to face this difficulty and to try to put an end to the trouble connected with these evicted farms. I referred just now to the Plan of Campaign, and though I do not wish to enter at length or in great detail into that very thorny controversy, I feel it right to refer to it while dealing with the condition of the evicted tenants. I have never concealed the fact that I disapproved entirely of the Plan of Campaign. I have stated that in this House and elsewhere. What I wish to say now is that while no doubt the Plan of Campaign has increased the number of tenants who are evicted in Ireland, the Plan of Campaign is not the sole reason for introducing this Pill. And I am sure it will not be argued that because of the existence of the Plan of Campaign, which has been most unfortunate in its results, and in some cases disastrous, we are not entitled to deal with this question. I will claim the support of Her Majesty's Opposition in favour of the proposition that it is essential this question should be dealt with. I have referred already to the 13th section of the Act of 1891, and I will now deal with it more in detail. That section was accepted by the Leader of the Conservative Party in another place, who was then Chief Secretary for Ireland. It was accepted by Mr. Balfour, and that is a matter of considerable importance. What did that section admit? It was not compulsory. I begin by at once admitting that. That section enabled certain tenants who had lost their rights

  659
  to obtain all the privileges which they would have obtained had they been existing tenants under the Purchase Act of 1891.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: With the consent of the landlord.
  EARL SPENCER: No doubt with the consent of the landlord. I quite agree in what the noble Marquess said. It was a privilege conferred upon tenants who had been evicted and were not within the scope of the Bill and tenants who had been evicted probably in consequence of the Plan of Campaign. I think that is a matter of considerable importance, and I must dwell further on this clause. Unfortunately, the 13th clause of the Act of 1891 had very little effect in Ireland. Very few cases were dealt with. I find there were only 189 applications on 19 estates up to the 31st of March this year; 138 cases on 12 estates were settled; 42 cases were then outstanding. I have no information of what has happened to them; nine cases were refused. I think that will show that the clause was not successful, and that it did not operate as it was intended. Why has it failed? Perhaps it is a rash thing to point out where a measure of this sort has failed, but I will venture to give two or three reasons. First, its operation was limited to a short time—six months. Then the parties who were to come under the Bill hesitated to come forward, because they considered it would be an act of weakness on their part to do so. I should like here to refer to a very notable remark made by the Chief Secretary of that day. I am only speaking now, my Lords, about the necessity of a settlement, not as to compulsion in this matter. Mr. Balfour said—
  "For my part, if I were an Irish landlord, even if it were not to my own pecuniary interest, I should desire to have peace in that part of that country in which my property was situated, and that these men should on fair, equitable, and even generous terms be restored to their homes."
  I cannot conceive a wiser or more equitable sentiment than is contained in those words. Another distinguished person, who is not a supporter of Her Majesty's Government, Mr. Courtney, also said recently it was a matter of urgent necessity that this crowd of evicted tenants,
  660
  landless and workless, should be restored He said—
  "I do not commit myself for one moment to the particular method which is adopted in the Bill, but that it is desirable, urgent, and necessary to deal in some way with the crowd of evicted tenants who are found in a landless and workless condition near the places where they once worked as tenants is, to my mind, an abiding conviction."
  Now, my Lords, I venture to think that the case is established that it is indispensable for peace and for law and order in Ireland that a settlement should be arrived at on this question. I will now turn to the Bill itself, and endeavour, as shortly as I can, to explain its provisions to your Lordships. The first thing it does is to establish a body of Arbitrators to deal with the subject. The Arbitrators have been named in the Bill, and, as far as I know, very little exception has been taken to them, to their impartiality, their ability, or their experience. The noble Marquess shakes his head, and although what I say will not carry weight with him, I am bound to give my opinion, knowing all three gentlemen, that no more impartial, able, and experienced men could be found than those named in the Bill to carry out their work. It has been over and over again said, Why do you appoint a fresh body; why do you not leave the settlement of these disputes to the Land Commission? There are two reasons: First of all, the Land Commission has an enormous mass of business to get through, and it is most undesirable to add to that business. In the next place, it is not desirable that the Laud Commissioners, with all their difficult duties in connection with landlords and tenants in different parts of the country, should be mixed up in matters which may raise acute and difficult questions. These are the reasons why Her Majesty's Government thought it desirable to appoint special Commissioners for this task of conciliation. The Arbitrators are appointed for two years. Any tenant of a holding, agricultural or pastoral, or partly agricultural and partly pastoral, may make an appeal to the Arbitrators to consider his case for reinstatement to his holding. The Arbitrators may then go into the matter, and make a Provisional Order in the case; they may dismiss the case, or they may decide in favour of reinstating the tenant subject to conditions.

  661
  On the Provisional Order being made, they send it to the landlord, and if the landlord assents, this Order is made absolute, with such conditions as the Arbitrators may decide. If, on the other hand, the landlord objects, the Arbitrators are bound to hear, either in public or private, his objection, and then make their decision. This, my Lords, is the only part of the Bill in which compulsion is introduced. The landlord may require the tenant to purchase his holding, and the purchase-money has to be settled either by the Land Commissioners or the Arbitrators, and if the tenant refuses to buy the holding his claim for reinstatement ceases. The rent of the holding shall be the former rent until a new rent is fixed. Either the Laud Commissioners, or, if the landlord and tenant so desire, the Arbitrators themselves may fix a new rent. To explain the necessity of this provision, I may say, first of all, that there may be tenants who, in the opinion of the Arbitrators, should be reinstated, but who held their farms before the Act of 1881, and there may be others who held their farms before the Act of 1887. In these eases it is right that a fair rent should be fixed. In the case, again, where the farm has been derelict for a considerable time, the former tenant should not be compelled to give the same rent as before. And in another ease it is right that a fair rent should be fixed—namely, where the landlord has, during his own tenure of the holding, laid out a large sum of money upon it. With regard to the provision as to purchase, that
  "a guarantee deposit shall not be retained out of the Guaranteed Land Stock issued for the advance of the purchase-money,"
  it may be said that the Government are diminishing the Guarantee Fund on which this country depends, and running considerable risk to this country in the event of default on the part of the tenants. Now it is satisfactory, at all events with regard to past purchases, to notice that out of £10,000,000 that have been advanced since 1885 for the purchase of holdings, only about £2,000 has been taken from the Guarantee Deposit Fund, and I need hardly say that if the same proportion prevails with regard to these farms the amount will reach a very small sum indeed. Coming to the case where the Arbitrators find that a new
  662
  tenant is in occupation of the holding, the same process is gone through which I have already described, and if the new tenant objects the Arbitrators shall not make an order for reinstatement. So far as we can tell, the provision in this clause applies to about 1,500 of the evicted tenants. If the Arbitrators think it desirable, they may allow the landlord two years' arrears of rent or a part, thereof, and they may, out of the funds at their disposal, pay one half of the sum. In case the farmhouse or buildings are in a state of dilapidation, a sum not exceeding £50 may be paid to the incoming tenant for repairing them. The third sub-section of the fourth clause contains an important provision—namely, that where a new tenant objects to an order for reinstatement—
  "The Arbitrators may, upon all claims on the holding being renounced by the former tenant, award to him, out of the moneys at their disposal for the purposes of this Act, such sums as they deem reasonable, not exceeding the sums which, in their opinion, might have been payable out of the said funds in respect of the said holding if the order for reinstatement had been made."
  This is in order to facilitate the process of settlement, because it would be an immense boon to the tenant and would probably enable him to settle on some other farm, and this would, in our opinion, be a great step towards a solution of the difficulty. Then there is a clause encouraging voluntary agreements between landlords and tenants. In those cases the Arbitrators may award such compensation and take all the steps which would have been taken had a decision been made under their arbitration. The sum at the disposal of the Arbitrators will be £250,000, charged on the Irish Church Temporalities Fund. Notwithstanding the enormous number of calls there have been on this fund, I am assured that there will not be the slightest difficulty in the money being provided out of the fund. But there is another point. Will this sum be sufficient for the purpose? As far as I can make out, it will exceed considerably what will be necessary to carry out the provisions of the measure. If every landlord were to receive from the Commissioners one year's arrears for tenants taking the benefit of the Act, that would amount to about £142,000. I need hardly point out that nothing

  663
  like that number will come under the operation of the Bill, and therefore, as far as that part of the measure goes, there will be ample money at the disposal of the Arbitrators. The balance, after dealing with the arrears, will, in the opinion of the Government, suffice to meet all other requirements of the Act. Lastly, there is a provision with regard to migration, the Land Commissioners being empowered, on the recommendation of the Arbitrators, to buy land to sell to tenants. My Lords, having now dealt with the Bill, I will come to these parts about which the greatest amount of contention exists—I mean the compulsory provisions. Though there may be objections to other parts of the Bill, that is the crucial difference between Her Majesty's Government and the Opposition in this matter. I will say at once that in the opinion of the Government compulsion will be the surest way of effecting a settlement. Where is it that the difficulty exists? Surely it is in those landlords who are unwilling or unable to meet their former tenants. I would quote here again Mr. Courtney, who has taken such a leading part in the discussions on this Bill, and I rely entirely on the arguments he used. He said—
  "I confess it is difficult to take up the position of affirming that it is desirable, expedient, and reasonable that the credit of the State should be used and the procedure of the Courts extended and made more elaborate in order to bring hack tenants to their holdings, and that at the same time it is reasonable to allow an unreasonable landlord to object. The thing in itself is a thing we desire as a matter of Imperial policy. You may get half-a-dozen individuals—certainly not expressing the views of the majority of the Irish landlords—unreasonably preventing what you say is a reasonable solution, and you will not allow the interference of the State to prevent these plague spots being removed."
  That is the view which Her Majesty's Government take. We believe that without compulsion these plague spots will not be removed. I do not like to speak of my own personal experience in this matter, but I cannot help referring to the experience which I had in Ireland, and which bears on this subject. The first time I went to Ireland we had a state of murderous agitation and combination in Westmeath. The second time I went to Ireland I found a terrible agrarian convulsion pervading the whole
  664
  country. We met the difficulty as we could, but I remember full well this—and I think it will be the experience of others who have had to deal with the subject—that very often the most successful way of dealing with a disturbed district was to obtain a settlement of the agrarian difficulty between landlord and tenant. Time after time was I able to do this, and I know that whenever a settlement in any part of the country was effected we were able at once to remove the police and the military, without whom before that settlement life was not safe in the district. I quote this experience of mine in support of the weighty words which were used by Mr. Courtney. It is these plague spots in different parts of the island which are the real and serious danger, and I fear that unless these are dealt with no measure will prove satisfactory or of much effect. At the same time, I will say this: that another method might relieve to a great extent the tension in Ireland—I mean voluntary settlements. But the one condition on which a voluntary measure can be successful is this: that we must have some guarantee that both sides to this bitter struggle are ready to act loyally in the matter. I regret to think that as far as we have sroue—although there have been several notable instances of leading men who are desirous of a settlement—we have not had any declaration from lending landlords in Ireland that would encourage us to adopt a voluntary measure. On the other hand, the Irish Members have expressed a willingness to meet the other side half-way, if they could be assured that the landlords would act loyally in this matter. I shall not say more on this point. Now, my Lords, I will refer to another matter which I have seen used as an argument why your Lordships should not accept this measure—namely, the conduct of the Government in another place. I shall not go at length into that subject. I only wish to say that I cannot for a moment think that your Lordships would adopt any argument of that sort. Criticisms may be made on that subject in this House, and if they are my noble Friends will be able to defend the action of the Government, but I cannot conceive how this will be an argument for your Lordships not dealing with the subject when your Lordships have it entirely in your own.

  665
  hands—though I should deprecate it—to remodel the Bill. I have only a few-words more to say, but they are words of earnest entreaty. You have too often in the past curtailed provisions in Irish Bills which have come from another place, and have been supported by the majority of the Irish people. You have too often rejected measures which the majority of the Irish nation considered of vital interest to their country. On the other hand, you have passed measures which are hateful to them. I do not for a moment say that your Lordships had not an absolute right to follow out your own opinions, but a very deplorable and unfortunate state of things occurs from this opposition of your Lordships to the opinion of the country as made known through the majority of the Irish Members elsewhere. You have now another important Irish measure before you. You have another opportunity of making a concession to Irish opinion, and to settle a bitter quarrel. This opportunity may not come again, or it may not come under such auspicious circumstances. At this moment Ireland is in a state of quietude such as she has not enjoyed for 20 years. Too often in this controversy the arguments opposed to Irish measures have run in what I may call a vicious circle. If Ireland is quiet you are told there is no need for legislation; if Ireland is disturbed you are told you must wait till she becomes quiet before introducing healing measures. I repudiate that doctrine. I desire your Lordships to seize this opportunity of trying to settle this serious and great difficulty. I cannot forget a memorable occasion 14 years ago when the Liberal Government proposed a measure which they deemed necessary to the peace of Ireland—I refer to the Compensation for Disturbance Bill. Your Lordships rejected that measure. The terrible land agitation which then had begun was not abated, but increased, and culminated in one of the worst outbreaks of crime ever known in that country. I do not say that similar events will follow the rejection of our present proposal; God forbid! The condition of Ireland is better; the temper and feeling of the Irish people is better; but you will exasperate the feelings of a large body of men who up to the present time have looked to Parliament
  666
  to meet their grievances, and if your Lordships reject this measure they will know that they have no hope, at all events from this House. I entreat your Lordships not to refuse the demands of the Irish people. I do not say that the Irish Government will not be able to meet the difficulties which may arise, but I do say that their difficulties will be enormously increased. This proposal is made in the interests of law and order, and I feel very strongly that a most serious responsibility will rest with this House if they reject the measure, the Second Reading of which I have the honour of proposing to your Lordships.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl Spencer.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved that the Bill be read a second time that day three months. He said no one could rise to follow the noble Earl in a Debate in the House without paying a tribute to the high tone of his speech and his evident desire to do what in his heart he believed to be fair and equitable. They would all agree that it was incumbent on them to see whether this controversy could not be settled on a fair and equitable basis, but when they came to discuss what was fair and equitable a very wide divergence of opinion might be found to exist, lie would say, however, that if all the speeches on this subject had been made in the same conciliatory tone as that of the noble Earl, he believed the two sides would not have been now so far apart as he was afraid they wore. What were the pleas advanced for this Bill by the noble Earl? He told them that a great emergency existed in Ireland—that there was a sore and a grievance existing, and that if the present state of matters continued it would in all probability be the source of grave difficulty and danger to the Administration. That was a plea to which noble Lords on that side of the House would not be likely to turn a deaf car; but they considered that if any attempt was to be made to deal with this matter it must be done upon right lines and with due and fair consideration to the private rights of others. They thought this Bill was not on lines which ought to be accepted, and there was too much evidence that even if it were to be accepted

  667
  it would not settle the controversy. The noble Earl dwelt at some length upon the difference between the conditions of the land problem in Ireland, and in England and Scotland, and had cited some of the provisions of the Acts of 1870, 1881, and 1891. But in all those cases the general assumption underlying the legislation was that it dealt with two parties who had rights. Did the noble Earl believe that all those who would be affected by this Bill had rights which could be defined and determined in the same way? Then the noble Earl appealed to the policy embodied in the 13th section of the Purchase Act of 1891, but it was only by a stretch of imagination that they could justify the argument that because a certain body of persons had agreed to accept a certain line of policy if worked voluntarily, therefore they were equally bound to accept it if it was to be imposed without the consent of both the parties concerned. What did that clause really do? It enabled two persons to enter into a bargain, and if the bargain was approved by the appointed agents of the State, the State would assist them and ratify the bargain, provided that the interests of the State were duly safeguarded. But in the present Bill there was no such supposition of two persons to the bargain, but the bargain, whatever it was, was to be imposed on two persons, neither of whom, perhaps, might be willing to accept it. It might be said that there was not sufficient time for the 13th section of the Act of 1891 to work. If that ground was taken, why could not the Government re-enact the section and give it sufficient time to effect the purpose in view? The Government should not destroy all possibility of a real settlement being effected by standing over the parties concerned with a big stick and saying, "Unless you agree you shall be forced to do so." The broad fact remained, and could not be denied, that the Bill placed those men who had resisted and broken the law in many respects in a better position than those who had not done so, but had obeyed the law. No appeals to sentiment nor to considerations of any other kind would remove this great defect in the proposal of the Government. He did not profess to be an authority on all the conditions attaching to ownership of Irish land, but his opinion was that if ever a
  668
  really equitable settlement was to be arrived at in this matter it must be made more or less by agreement, not only among politicians on different sides or political Parties, but between those whose private interests and rights were affected on one side and the other. One of the complaints of the Opposition was that in this matter the Government had all along thrown the whole weight of their influence on one side, and from first to last they had been the eager advocates of compulsion. But this had not always been the case. They entertained a prejudice against having their former declarations quoted against them, and he did not intend to go deeply into that fertile subject of controversy; but there was a time when Members of the Government evidently felt that all the right was not on the side of the tenant and all the wrong on the side of the landlord. On the 7th of January, 1886, the present Chief Secretary for Ireland used these words—
  "The late Government to their great honour passed an Act to prevent landlords confiscating the property of their tenants. That was a noble exploit. I do not think we shall be able to deal satisfactorily with Ireland until we have passed some legislation to prevent tenants from confiscating the property of their landlords."
  What had Mr. Morley done since then to prevent tenants from confiscating the property of the landlords? There had been visits to Tipperary. He would not contradict what had been said by the noble Earl in moving the Second Beading, that he had heartily condemned the Plan of Campaign, and he did not say that Mr. Morley had not condemned the Plan of Campaign, but he thought he had erred lamentably on the side of weakness when he spoke of it. Members of the Government, when in Opposition, went about making promises to the tenants in Ireland. After the present Government was formed, Mr. Morley announced in ominous tones, that in this matter ho "meant business." Then followed the appointment of Mr. Justice Mathews Commission. After that Commission had reported, all the Members of the Government in the other House voted for a Bill introduced by one of the Irish Members containing provisions for the absolute reinstatement of every evicted tenant, no matter whether his holding had been, let or not. It was impossible to fail to

  669
  see that these proceedings of the Government had raised hopes in the minds of the tenants, which the Government were now finding it very difficult to satisfy. He frankly admitted the attractive character of the appeal of the noble Earl to let bygones be bygones, and were he an Irish landlord he would voluntarily yield much for the sake of peace; he would desire honestly to make peace, and he would welcome any voluntary course which would bring about a fair and real settlement, but he would resist by every legal means being compelled to make peace on the compulsory terms of the Bill. It seemed to him that there could be no hope of permanent peace secured by putting one side absolutely under the heel of the other, and giving that other a sense of triumph. He had no desire to be vindictive, but he asked the House and the Government to consider what were the special lessons which they would teach the people of Ireland if this Bill was passed. They would teach them that their special favour, their special reward and privileges, were reserved for those who had combined to rebel against the law, and who had promised, in no indistinct terms, to do it again. So far as he was concerned, the chief obstacle in the way of the Bill was its element of compulsion, but it should not be left out of sight that there were other objections to it. He could not fail to see the effect it would probably have on the new tenants, whose position would be made much worse than it was at present. Not only would the Bill not bring about a permanent settlement; there was only too much reason to apprehend that it would not bring about even a truce, if any confidence was to be placed in some of the declarations that had been recently made. But, in addition to this, grave objections might be taken against the machinery of the Bill, even if the element of compulsion was removed. The noble Earl had quoted the number of persons who were likely to apply under the Bill, and had stated the number as 4,000. It was difficult to know exactly what was the intention of Her Majesty's Government in the matter. Surely there had been changes in their policy to which the noble Earl had not referred in his speech. They had been accustomed to speak of the Bill as an Evicted Tenants' Bill, and understood that the Mathew
  670
  Commission was appointed to inquire into the number of evicted tenants. He appealed to the terms of Mr. Morley's-letter to Mr. Justin M'Carthy, announcing the decision to appoint the Commission. Mr. Morley wrote—
  "We intend that the area of the inquiry shall principally cover estates within the scope of Section 13 of the Act of 1891, where disputes still exist between landlords and evicted tenants, but excluding all cases where the evicted tenants have left the country."
  On the Second Reading of the Bill in another place Mr. Morley indicated that there would be about 5,900 persons likely to claim its benefits, of whom 4,000 would claim with success. Those figures were challenged at the time. He repeated that it was difficult to know what the Government meant as to the number of evicted tenants to be dealt with. It would appear, from the statements made by Mr. Morley, as reported in The Times of the 9th of August, that there might be more than 32,000 persons who would claim under the Bill. He had no wish to mislead the House nor to detain it by quoting a somewhat long conversation. Mr. Bartley on that occasion said
  "there was nothing to prevent those 32,000 evicted tenants from claiming under the Bill;"
  and Mr. Morley answered—
  "I think not; but each case will be determined upon its merits."
  EARL SPENCERsaid, he had referred to a large number of tenants who had been evicted up to a certain time, and there might have been 32,000. But almost the whole of these had since then been restored to their holdings, and the 4,000 represented those who had neither been restored nor were living on land of their own, and who would, therefore, come within the scope of the Bill.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, that hardly disposed of the whole case, though, of course, the noble Earl knew the intentions of the Government and the probable scope of the Bill much better than himself. In reply to a question Mr. Morley stated that from 1881 to 1887 there had been 24,400 evictions, and from 1887 to 1894 8,975 evictions; making a total of over 33,000. It was quite true, as stated, that some of those persons had been reinstated and others had gone into other callings, and that of

  671
  the 5,900 evicted tenants expected to claim only 4,000 might be expected to claim successfully. But, after all, the exact number of those concerned in the operation of this Bill was a matter of small importance as compared with the dangerous change of policy of Her Majesty's Government in connection with their measure. It now applied not only to cases where the eviction had been for non-payment of rent, but to all tenants whose tenancies had determined subsequently to the 1st of May, 1879. It applied to tenants whose tenancy had determined without any eviction—e.g., where the landlord had purchased the tenancy from the tenant at a Sheriff's sale or by private sale; where the tenants had voluntarily surrendered the holding with or without compensation; where the tenant was evicted for breach of one of the statutory conditions attached to tenancies where a fair rent had been fixed by the Act of 1881; and it would also include tenants evicted by order of the Judge of the High Court—by the Lord Chancellor, for example—where the owner was a minor or lunatic; or by Mr. Justice Monroe, the Land Judge. In those cases the Judge must have considered all the circumstances before ordering proceedings, and presumably no injustice was done. Why should all these persons be entitled to demand to be reinstated? Why should they be restored to their holdings when nothing was done for men who had quitted their farms in similar circumstances in England? The policy of this Bill and the lessons taught by it could not be confined to Ireland. This was not merely an Irish question, but it would act and react upon the government of this country. It must exert a powerful influence on the methods of government in the country, and therefore he viewed it as one of the gravest and most dangerous steps that Parliament had ever been asked to take. If the Bill were confined to the cases of those who had suffered some undeserved misfortune, and who had been evicted in circumstances over which they had no control, it would appeal to the sympathy of almost every Member of their Lordships' House. For himself he should be ready to facilitate the return to their holdings of men who had lost them in consequence of some technicality in the law, if that could he done with fairness to
  672
  others. But it was altogether a different thing when they were asked to restore wholesale to their holdings men who had joined together to resist the payment of their just obligations which they boasted they could in many cases have discharged if they had chosen. Partnership in these matters was urged, but by enacting a measure for the compulsory reinstatement of tenants they would be arraying all the forces of the Government against the very partner in Irish land affairs who had fulfilled his share of the contract. They would, in addition, be justifying and rewarding the authors of the Plan of Campaign. They would be giving not only State reconsideration, but State reward to men who had broken the law, who had rebelled against authority, and who had not acknowledged that they were wrong in so doing. He felt inclined to ask whether the Government had no misgivings of teaching such lessons? To pass this Bill would be teaching that rebellion against the law was one of the surest roads to favour and reward at the public expense. To reinstate compulsorily men who had broken their contracts would be to establish a precedent fatal to the future tranquillity of Ireland, and to create far more danger than could be compensated by any present gain which possibly might be purchased by such a measure. Another consideration was this: both Parties in the State were committed to large schemes of purchase, and by-and-by the State would probably have become the largest landlord in Ireland. What would be the effect then of this teaching they were now inculcating? The noble Lord opposite used as an argument the. fact that there was to be a body of high-minded men appointed as Arbitrators, and had urged that it would be wise to trust this tribunal as one of the safeguards of the Bill. But even supposing that those gentlemen were the most capable and impartial men in Ireland, the duty which the Government proposed to lay upon them was a duty which no men could perform satisfactorily. There was no foundation of law for them to work upon; there were no rules made by a higher authority than themselves for their guidance, no sanction of procedure to which they could appeal if their acts were called in question, and the position which they were to

  673
  occupy was not such as would preclude the possibility of pressure being brought to bear upon them. Their salaries were to be on Votes, which was not a satisfactory method of dealing with the salaries of men who had such very difficult and controversial duties to discharge. He did not wonder that the Government shrank from saying openly they were going to put back all the tenants who were going to join the Plan of Campaign, and they were laying down no rules to guide the Arbitrators. If there were supporters of the Government who would not allow them to frame Rules for the guidance of the Arbitrators and to lay down conditions which should govern questions of reinstatement, could they think that those supporters would be likely to accept quietly the decisions of the Arbitrators if those decisions should not be in accordance with their views? He did not say that the Nationalist Members—having led certain persons into the difficulties in which they were now placed, having induced them to join the Plan of Campaign—were not acting under a certain sense of chivalrous honour which prevented them from deserting men who had accepted their guidance, but this in no way diminished the responsibility that attached to the Government, who ought to be the guardians of law and order, for proposing such a measure as that before the House. The Government said they had provided safeguards in the Bill, but he must say that the procedure proposed in the Bill was one of the most unjust things he had ever heard. A primâ facie case for reinstatement was to be made out in the first instance; but there was to be no appearance upon oath, and he supposed that a small sheet of paper containing the signature of the applicant would be sufficient to establish a primâ facie case. No power was given of getting information which would be useful for purposes of cross-examination. Surely some Rules should be laid down—something to guide the Arbitrators in the difficult duty they were asked to discharge. The landlord was apparently not to have notice until a subsequent stage, and even then there was no power to put the applicants upon oath or to summon witnesses. Then another provision, one of the most extraordinary he had ever seen,
  674
  was that the Arbitrators were told that they were to take into account "the circumstances of the district." What had the circumstances of the district to do with the matter? If a district was peaceful, was everybody to be reinstated; and if a district was turbulent, was nobody to be reinstated, or was it the other way? They were entitled to know what were the intentions of Her Majesty's Government in this matter. He trusted that before the Debate closed they should hear from the Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Lord Kimberley), whose ability and adroitness in debate they all admired, and who had power sometimes to make the worse, as they considered, appear the better reason, what was his interpretation of the instruction to the Arbitrators that they were to take into account "the circumstances of the district." He would also like to ask the Prime Minister, who had said on a recent occasion that he was not going to make any impromptu speeches, to tell the House perhaps to-morrow night, by which time he could have thought it out, what effect, in his view, "the circumstances of the district" were to have on the minds and the judgment of the Arbitrators. He hoped also that the Lord Chancellor would give their Lordships the benefit of his legal ability and knowledge in guiding them in this difficulty, as to what was the intention of the Government in inserting the extraordinary sentence that the Arbitrators were to have reference to "the circumstances of the district" Perhaps the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would not object to give his judgment upon the case, though it was not laid before him with all the paraphernalia of wig and gown. The noble Lord at least must have paid attention to the drafting of the Pill, and it would be interesting to know from the noble Lord what was the intention of the Government in putting into the Bill that most extraordinary sentence that the Arbitrators were to have reference to "the circumstances of the district." He did not propose to argue at any length as to what would be the position of the landlords under the Bill. He did not know that grievances of landlords found a very receptive place in the minds and hearts of noble Lords opposite; but it did appear to him that it was inflicting a hardship on the landlord to force upon

  675
  him perhaps an insolvent tenant, instead of a solvent one; to compel him to take a man who had perhaps treated him badly, instead of one with whom he was working on terms of perfect peace. The landlord, in his judgment, would lose either way. If the farm were left derelict on account of the eviction of the tenant, as he understood the provisions of the Bill, the landlord would receive less rent for it in the future; and if the landlord had been able to keep up the farm and spend money upon it, there appeared to be no adequate security that a due return would be forthcoming. It was said by the noble Earl that the landlord might demand a sale. They first made his position as uncomfortable as they could, and then they proceeded to buy him out at a reduced price, to be fixed by their own agents. That did not seem to him to be either a fair or a reasonable position in which to place the landlord. Then there was another point. It was important to consider most carefully what would be the effect of this Bill on those who had taken farms from which tenants had been evicted. It would not, he thought, be disputed that there was an obvious desire on the part of certain persons in Ireland to prevent farms from being taken. He did not think he would be wrong in describing that as one of the cardinal points in the policy of those people. Land-grabbing was denounced in every conceivable form, though the persons guilty of this so-called offence were only exercising the ordinary and natural rights of citizenship. The land-grabbers were called "legalised brigands," "public thieves," and other epithets. The object was clear. It was to prevent new tenants from taking farms, for if that end could be attained a great blow would be struck at eviction. If farms could not be let there was, of course, less inducement to evict. He would not say that eviction was a nice and pleasant process, but in certain circumstances it had to be resorted to as a melancholy necessity. If they were going to make eviction more difficult than at present, how were they going to enforce payment of rent? It seemed to him that the farmers of Ireland—hedid not complain of that—were already hedged about with every reasonable safeguard. But the matter did not stop there. It was said that the number of farms, vacant or taken, might
  676
  be held to represent the barometer of peace in Ireland. Mr. Gladstone used to go about the country, some years ago, saying—"There is no peace; no settlement in Ireland. Your policy is not successful, because farms are standing empty." But would this Bill lighten or would it make more difficult the position of those who had taken farms? Could it be doubted, having regard to the views of the Irish Members, that one of the effects of the Bill would be to make the position of the new tenants more intolerable than it was at present? Was it not obvious that every man who was evicted, and saw his farm in the possession of another tenant, would see that the landlords had been coerced, and would feel that one man's life was the only obstacle which stood between him and the possession of his old farm? "Persuasion," as it was called, would be brought to bear on the new tenants to give up their farms; and it was easy to imagine what "persuasion" would be held to include under those circumstances. There could be no doubt that the Plan of Campaign was a political movement, intended to embarrass the administration of Mr. Balfour in Ireland. It should be remembered, however, that these tenants had helped to defeat the Plan of Campaign; they had trusted to British law and the British Parliament, and to desert them now and to add to their danger would not only be a wrong, but an infamy almost too great for words to condemn. No one, he imagined, would deny that the Bill was an exceptional interference with private rights, and that the only justification for it was that it would accomplish a great end and lead to a lasting peace. But did anyone really hope that the Bill, as it stood, would have that effect? No Irish Member had defended the Bill out and out, nor had it been accepted as it stood by any section of the Irish Members. The Irish Members had asked for more; they had divided against the Government in Committee of the Bill in their desire to get more, and their Lordships could not ignore the fact that the Bill would not satisfy in its entirety the real object of the Nationalists—namely, to get rid by some wholesale process of the new tenants. But though he said that, he could not deny that the Bill would be of great use to the Nationalist Party. The Bill would be of use as a precedent and

  677
  as a reason for asking for more. The programme of the Irish Members was known. In their opinion—and in this they were supported by some of the English followers of the Government— rent, even judicial rent, was an immoral tax, and their intention was to take slice after slice of the landlords' property until they had reduced it to what was called prairie value. If, therefore, the Bill was not going to close the controversy, what did their Lordships gain by passing it? He knew that in asking their Lordships to reject the Bill they would be open to much misconstruction and perhaps some abuse. The supporters of the Government might go about the country and abuse their Lordships in the future as they had threatened them in the past. His opinion was that those arguments could only affect those who cared for them; and if their Lordships once yielded to them they would have done much to damage their position. If their Lordships passed this Bill, would they earn respect or bring about peace? They would do nothing of the kind? They would only add contempt to the hostility which already existed. Was this a just, expedient, fair proposal? He did not deny that there had been occasions, and there might be occasions again, when in matters of opinion and of judgment their Lordships' House ought to yield to others; but it appeared to him that the question now before the House was one pre-eminently of principle. It was a question which, more than any other, ought to be decided on the abstract ground of justice; and on that ground it seemed to him that this Bill was incapable of defence or of justification. If their Lordships passed this Bill they would cast to the winds every principle of law and government which had hitherto been received in this and every civilised country. No consideration of their comfort or their privileges should in this matter weigh with their Lordships to the slightest extent. He did not say that he should vote against the Bill without regret; but he did say that he would go into the Lobby against it without hesitation. He concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now"), and add at the end of the
  678
  Motion ("this day three months.")—{The Lord Balfour.)
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: My Lords, I rise, not without some regret, to follow my noble Friend. I do not think it is generally expedient that two Members of the House on the same side should follow each other, but, my Lords, we are in exceptional circumstances. I have no doubt that a number of Peers opposite will vote for the Second Reading of this Bill. I hope that some of them will speak who are not connected with the Government. But, as far as I have seen the list of those who are likely to take part in this Debate on the opposite side of the House, this strange fact has been evident—that every one of them is either a Member, or an office-holder in the Government. That is an unusual circumstance in the case of an important Bill. But I congratulate the House on one fact connected with this Bill, and that is the position of your Lordships' House in regard to it. When important Bills come up to us from the other House we have always two duties to perform. We have to discuss the Bill on its merits, and we have to consider the authority on which it comes. Sometimes it is not very easy to reconcile these two duties Sometimes measures come to us with very little merit, but with very great authority. I congratulate the House on this fact—that this Bill has no merit at all, and that it comes to us with less than no authority. I am not going to dwell upon the circumstances under which this Bill has passed the House of Commons. I do not like to speak of what is called "the gag." The reputation and honour of the House of Commons is a matter of deep concern to all of us; but we are not the guardians of that honour, and we can do nothing to maintain it. We must trust for that to the constituencies of the country. But we can judge of that part of our duty which enjoins upon us to weigh the authority on which Bills come; we can take notice of these facts and shape our course according to the authority with which the Bill comes to us. Now, my Lords, before I pass to the Bill I wish to dissociate myself entirely from some of the arguments which have been used against the Bill out-of-doors. I shall not vote against this Bill, because I am un-

  679
  willing to give a place of repentance to the wounded and fallen soldiers in what was a great social war. I speak for myself only, but I should be willing to give them a place of repentance; and with a proper tribunal, really judicial and acting under the authority and direction of Parliament, I should be willing to vote for any measure, voluntary in its character, which would facilitate the reinstatement of men who have been the dupes of others more designing and wicked than themselves. Again, I am not unwilling to vote for a measure—though some have expressed such unwillingness—which would take the Irish Church Fund for the reward of those who have disobeyed the law. On the contrary, I am rather disposed to think that the sooner that Church Fund is dispersed the better. It has done some good, no doubt, in the hands of Mr. Balfour; but at present it is a fund out of which every political job in Ireland is paid for, and will be paid for as long as it lasts. Besides, I really think that both the Government and their protégés have qualified themselves to take advantage of this fund. Your Lordships may remember the original destination of that fund as defined by Mr. Gladstone. It was to be spent "on those who had lost their minds—on lunatics." That was the destination appointed by Mr. Gladstone when he introduced the Irish Church Act. I have always thought that that was the most wonderful example I have ever known of the power of a great man, wielding great eloquence and authority, to impose upon a popular assembly. Could any human being believe that the Irish Church surplus was to be expended only for lunatics in Ireland? But that was swallowed by the House of Commons at the time, and it stands on record as the destination which Mr. Gladstone intended for this fund. I must say, however, that I think that those who have lost their farms in Ireland under the favourable conditions they now enjoy may be considered as having lost their minds; and I should be glad to see this fund wisely and justly distributed for their relief. Once more, it has been objected to this Bill that in the last resort it looks to the taxpayer of this country; and so it does. But I remember the time when Sir Robert Peel gave a large loan for landowners not only in
  680
  Ireland, but in this country also. It was at the time of the abolition of the Corn Laws. I was myself a landlord at the time, and I took a large advantage of that loan. I spent it on emigration and on improving lands; and I flattered myself that the money was laid out to great public advantage, both locally and generally; and I, for one, would not object to any advance from public funds in Ireland which is really necessary for the healing of any of its wounds. I believe that the Purchase Act has been admirably successful; that those who have bought land under the security of loans from the public Treasury have been honest in the repayment of those loans, and it is a great encouragement to us to proceed in the same direction, provided that we do it on just and sound principles. Therefore, I throw aside all those objections to the Bill, and I concentrate my attention—and I should be glad to concentrate the attention of the House—on the real objections to this Bill. In the first place, I say that it is a Bill with a false title. It is absolutely false; it misrepresents the object of the Bill. It is called a Tenants Arbitration Bill; but the Court which this Bill sets up is not an Arbitration Court. It is not a Court to which both parties by agreement can come to settle their differences by arbitration. It is a revolutionary tribunal, before which both parties can be dragged by one of them in his own interest alone. That is not an Arbitration Bill. I say, then, that the principal title is intended to deceive the people of this country by concealing the violence of the proposals which the Bill contains. The second title is "An Act to facilitate and make provision for the migration and restoration to their holdings in Ireland of certain former tenants or their personal representatives." Why "certain former tenants?" That means that the Bill has defined the tenants that you are to protect and reward. That is what the Bill ought to have done; but it is what the Bill has not done. I have tried to draft a title which should be a strict and accurate account of the Bill, and I think a better title would have been this:— An Act to empower certain persons to reinstate in their former holdings any or all rural tenants in Ireland, or their heirs, who have lost their holdings

  681
  during the last 15 years, either by bankruptcy, or dishonesty, or criminal conspiracy, or any other cause." The Bill might be described in other terms as "An Act to empower certain persons to deal with all agricultural tenancies in Ireland, so that the law may be a praise to them that do evil and a terror to them that do well." Those titles would suit the Bill perfectly; and I do not know why one or the other was not adopted, to direct the attention of the people to the monstrous character of the proposals. But as to the great peculiarities of this Bill. My noble Friend's able speech would have been exhaustive but for this: that the demerits of this Bill are absolutely inexhaustible. If every Member of this House were to speak every night for a month we should still find some new monstrosity to expose. The speech of the noble Earl who introduced the Bill was no more directed to this Bill than it was directed to the man in the moon. He might have been speaking of a different Bill altogether. He said that it was to provide for some 4,000 unfortunate men who had fallen by the Plan of Campaign. Why, my Lords, it applies to every tenant in Ireland who has lost his holding from any cause during the last 15 years. There is another characteristic of the Bill to which I wish to direct attention, and which strikes me very forcibly. It is a Bill retrospective, retroactive, and entirely ex post facto. I venture to say that an ex post facto law dealing with property in a way which is retrospective and ex post facto in its operation is of itself condemned as unjust and almost unprecedented. This is a Bill which is highly penal in its consequences. It punishes some and lavishes rewards on others. It punishes those who have acted in accordance with existing laws, not those who disobey a law in the future which you are now laying down. It rewards those who have disobeyed your laws in past times. It punishes those who acted under the authority of your laws, and who, on the faith of your enactments, entered into transactions with other men. It rewards those who, during a certain definite period, have acted against your authority and in violation of their obligations to society. All this it does, moreover, without one single word of provision for the future. You go
  682
  back to a limit of time. How much do you take? You take in 15 years. Why do you fix upon that limit of time? Why, because it takes in the whole of the Act of 1881 and two years of the Act of 1870. Then, does it not follow that the agrarian legislation of 1881 and 1870 is disparaged and damaged, although not actually repealed? My Lords, I never expected that I would have to stand here and defend the Act of 1881. Perhaps some of your Lordships may think that I am somewhat hypocritical in doing so. My attitude with regard to that Act is well known. I have been attacked on this subject in another place by a Member of the Government, who shares with the noble Lord opposite something of the Leadership of the Ministry. I should be sorry to say anything against Sir William Harcourt. He is an old friend of mine, an old colleague, a personal connection, and in private life he is a most estimable person. In politics, I confess I have always regarded him as an opportunist of the most perfect transparency. I did in regard to the Act of 1881 that which Sir William Harcourt could not conceive any man doing. I sacrificed place, political position, and political friends rather than agree to sacrifice that which I believed to be essentially wrong in principle. Sir William Harcourt could not conceive anyone being such a fool as to do that. I would advise those who wish to pursue so unimportant a matter as to attack my political reputation should choose some other subject than my conduct in regard to the Laud Act of 1881. It is a fact which, I am sorry to say, is unquestionable, that every prediction I made with regard to the Act has been amply fulfilled. It has not settled the Irish question. Everybody admits that it has not settled that question, and is not likely to do so. The speech of my noble Friend to-night was exactly the same speech we heard over and over again, if I may say so, usque ad nauseam before the passing of the Land Act of 1881. All these most disingenuous attacks on the landlords of Ireland we heard over and over again before this land legislation began, and they are now repeated word for word, when they cannot possibly be true. Look at the language of the Nationalist Party. Do they say that the Act of 1881 has

  683
  settled the question? No, they do not. They demand more and more, and the more you give them the more they will ask. Nevertheless, I will not vote for any Bill that repeals the Act of 1881 without providing any substitute, and that is what you are asked to do by this Bill. You are asked in this Bill to strike at the existing law, to damage it to the last degree—to reward those who have defied it, whilst at the same time you are not providing anything to take the place of the Act of 1881. Let me now direct attention to the gross injustice implied in this Bill directed against the Act of 1881, as compared with what may be truly said of its effects. I will take the last category first. In the first place, it is true that it has dissociated the whole rental of Ireland from the improvement of the soil. The landlords do not now feel safe in laying out a shilling of the rental in the improvement of any land in the occupation of the tenant. It may be that many landlords, out: of what Tennyson calls "old habit of the mind," still go on improving tenants' holdings; but as a rule the Act of 1881 has put an end to the improvement of the soil of Ireland held in tenancy out of the whole rental of the country. Was there ever such ruinous blow struck at the economic condition of any people? Again, that Act has made the attempt to provide that the State should fix the value of one particular article. Has that succeeded? I believe the Land Court has acted in the most conscientious way, but it has acted on no known principle and under no guidance from Parliament. All is done on the personal reliance of individual men. I say that it has not settled the question of rental in Ireland, because although the people submit sulkily to the new scale of rents, they have no real confidence in the perfect justice of the decisions; and both in the North and South of Ireland you have not unfrequent indications of the inevitable objections of the tenants to rents fixed on no known principle. In the third place the Act of 1881 proposed to give a great gain to the tenant-farmer. I deny that it has made land a shilling cheaper to those who were not holders of land when the Act was passed. On the contrary, by the encouragement which you gave to the exaggerated value
  684
  of tenant-right, every man who came into a farm since the Act was passed has had to pay through the nose for the privilege. The result is, that people are as "rack-rented" as ever. Then, again, what do the farmers charge for conacre? The Land Court fixes the landlord's rent, say, at the rate of 10s. an acre; but the farmer lets the land in conacre to the labouring classes at £4 and £5, and I have seen £12 an acre. Not one farthing of advantage has gone to the people of Ireland except to the existing holders when that Act was passed. Another effect of the Act has been to accustom the people to the working of an arbitary and a secret tribunal. Look at the demoralisation which has been created as manifested in this Bill. It seems to be now generally accepted that you may remit the whole interests of fellow-subjects, certainly as to property, and indirectly as to liberty and life, to the irresponsible action of three individual men. The fact that this Bill has been brought forward shows the extent to which the people have been accustomed to giving to an arbitrary tribunal judicial power. My Lords, whatever the rents fixed by the tribunals under the Act of 1881 may have been, they are not "judicial." How often have I wondered that noble Law Lords in this House, jealous as they always are of the honour of their great profession, should have permitted the word "judicial" to be used in connection with a tribunal, which acts according to no law, but on the personal authority of individual men. Do you remember what passed after the Act of 1881 was carried? A noble Lord moved for the appointment of a Committee to consider what those Commissioners were doing. I voted against that. I thought it premature. Do you remember the objection made by Mr. Gladstone? He was furious. He quoted the words of Chief Justice Holt when he was called upon by the House of Commons to give an account of one of his decisions. He said something like this—"No; my decision was a decision on the Bench, in the robes of my office and in the discharge of my duty to the country. I will give no explanation out of the Court in which my Judgment was delivered." Mr. Gladstone held that up as a pattern —as the answer which should be given to your Lordships' Committee if they dared

  685
  to ask a question of the Commissioners as to the principles upon which their judgments were based. Twelve years have passed, and the Liberal Party, or the Party which calls itself Liberal, have appointed a Committee to inquire into the working of the Act, and to question those Judges, as they are called, as to the principles of their proceedings. I noticed the other day in the public Press an observation made by a Member of this House of Commons Committee to one of the witnesses. An Irish Member interrupted the evidence and said, "This man will say or swear anything." These are the insults given to your "judicial" tribunals. I say again that in that respect the Act of 1881 has been a total failure. You have not established "judicial" rents; you have not established rents which anyone has any confidence in, because no one knows the principles upon which they have been decided. Then, my Lords, last of all I maintain that the Act of 1881 has spread political corruption through Ireland. These rents are arbitrarily settled by the arbitrary will of individual men. What do we hear said now by candidates for the House of Commons? They say "Vote for us, and we will keep in a Government who will give us new Commissioners of a different type when existing men have retired or are dead; men who will settle your rents on different principles, and who will give you your lands at prairie value." But the Act of 1881 was passed; and I agree with what my noble Friend, Lord Salisbury, said three or four years ago, that bad as it is, the Act of 1881 might work tolerably well if you only allowed it to work, kept to it, and supported the decisions of your officials. But that is exactly what you are not doing. This Bill condemns all that has been done under the Act of 1881 and for two years before. You introduce this Bill which sets aside the Act of 1881 at the very time that the illustrious author of that Act is retiring from public life; a Bill which virtually says that that Act, which was supposed to be the one great triumph of a great political career, has been an absolute failure in all its objects. My Lords, I will not vote for this Bill, because it repeals the Act of 1881, without providing any substitute for it. But I will tell noble Lords opposite, if they care to know, what are the principles upon which
  686
  I would reform the agrarian law of Ireland. My noble Friend, Lord Spencer, spoke of Ireland being different from England and Scotland. Have we not acted on that view long and far enough? Are there not rules of legislation which belong to mankind and to the civilised world—natural laws which are the laws of God? You propose virtually to abolish the Act of 1881 and you substitute nothing for it. I will tell you what you should do. Go back to the natural law, the law of all civilised nations. You have adopted free trade in the produce of land; adopt the principle of free trade in land itself. Throw the laud of Ireland open to all purchasers, secure them in their tenures, encourage capital expended in the improvement of the laud, act as men act all the world over, and your present difficulties will disappear. But until that has been done; until some Government of common sense, learning from your successive blunders in Ireland, discover that everything that has been done only increases the difficulties you have still to deal with; until that day comes, support your existing laws and insist on their being obeyed. In the meantime I must confess that the Act of 1881 had some virtues in it. In the first place, it supports the possibility of eviction. I say that if there is property in land or in anything else, those who hire that property must pay the price of hire or they must submit to be put out. I say evictions ought to go on in Ireland just as they do in London. Is there any Member of your Lordships' House who would not be evicted to-morrow if he determined not to pay his lawful debts? Do you suppose that the laws of nature and morality are to be suspended in favour of the Irish? What folly this is! There must be a certain amount of eviction. And when I heard Lord Spencer give the figures of the cases to which this Bill would apply, I must say it seemed to me an absolute proof of the great lenity and generosity with which the landlords of Ireland had behaved. I say that under the Act of 1881—however great its failures in other respects—unjust, cruel, and capricious evictions became impossible. It was for that object the law was passed, and in that object it has succeeded, and succeeded perfectly. Have your Lordships ever read the instructive address of Justice O'Hagan in opening the Land

  687
  Court? It was his object to explain to the people of Ireland the immense advantages which it secured for them, and if you read the speech you will see, especially in the passages where he dealt with the 13th clause, that so far from the Legislature facilitating unjust eviction, it strained its ingenuity to prevent landlords having even the power of just eviction over bankrupt tenants. And what is the result? Lord Spencer tells us that the total number of men who have lost land in Ireland since 1879 is 31,759. As the Return was reported in The Times those figures were not quite correct. As I make it out, the Returns show a total number of tenants evicted of nearly 38,000, and if you take in those tenants who have been compelled to sell because they were bankrupt to avoid eviction, I have no doubt the total number of tenants who have been in one way or other evicted has been 50,000. Do your Lordships remember how many tenants there are in Ireland? Four hundred thousand. You will find, if I am not much mistaken, that the number evicted is a fraction more than ½ per cent, per annum. The evictions in England and in Scotland of men who have fallen in the economic battle of life are infinitely more than that. The Land Act of 1881, therefore, I hold, cannot justly be accused of not having prevented capricious evictions. Now, my Lords, I look at this Bill from another point of view. What is to be our future when this Bill is passed? My noble Friend Lord Spencer in his half-hearted speech—I wish such duties were not always imposed upon him, from his high character and well-known truthfulness of language and sincerity of character—did not tell us what was to be the new code. This Bill provides nothing for the future, but it does not follow that it has no effect on the future. I say that it will have a most disastrous effect. The very first clause will still further discourage landlords from employing their capital on the improvement of the soil in Ireland, even when in their own possession. Let your Lordships think what a mischief that is. Do you not know that Irish land in the occupation of the landlord is the only land, as a rule, upon which money is laid out in improvements? Yet you are deliberately discouraging landlords from thus
  688
  employing their capital in the improvement of the soil of Ireland, and you are sentencing them to severe penalties if they dare to do so. Are we fools that the Government should ask us to adopt such a Bill as that? Have any of your Lordships read the Blue Books about the employment of labour in Ireland? Blue Books, I must say, are generally weary reading; but still there are significant facts in many of them which the intelligence of the public Press generally make public. But in one of those Irish Blue Books I saw a statement about Kerry which amused me very much. The Inspector, if I recollect right, a genuine Irishman named O'Brien, wrote of the little employment of labour in Ireland, because the small farmers worked their own land, and the landlords were discouraged in making improvements. But this Mr. O'Brien found a certain place in Kerry where a landlord was employing a large number of people, and he was amazed, and added that, no doubt, he would very soon stop. I thought it well to make some inquiries into this matter; and I found, as I expected, that this wonderful gentleman, who came all the way from England to lay out money on land in Ireland, was laying it out on land that was not in the occupation of tenants, but in his own occupation. That is the beneficent process which you wish to stop by the first clause of this Bill, and you adopt the most violent and unjust measures to stop it. By the first clause you enable an arbitrary tribunal to take from a landlord land of which he has got legitimate and legal hold, which he may have added to his demesne, which he may have largely improved, and on which he may have built houses. You take it from him, and give it back to the man who tried to rob him. Now, look at the new tenant. Under this Bill the new tenant will have to go—that is to say, solvent men have to go, and insolvent men are to be put in their place. Those men who are to go out had not to pay tenant-right; consequently, they were unmortgaged. They were free to use any capital they had on the improvement of the farms. Every other tenant got his farm by paying tenant-right, and was mortgaged up to the eyes. You are evicting men who are keeping the land in good condition, and putting

  689
  in their places individuals who very likely have disobeyed your laws and have violated their contracts and obligations. Then how are those men to he provided for when they are reinstated? The noble Earl has described them as penniless. Mr. Morley has said they are not so penniless as is supposed, and that many an Irishman looks very poor; but when you come to inquire you rind he has plenty of money. That is a well-known fact. It has been proved that in times when relief was distributed Irishmen hid their furniture in the bogs in order to get some of the relief. Mr. Morley says—
  "Do not suppose those men are so poor as they look; they can get command of means if they like."
  If that is true it proves that in not paying their rent they were not merely unfortunate, but fraudulent; and these are the men you wish to restore. I come to another class of men who are to be turned out without a moment's hesitation. These are the men they call "planters" The term is not defined. Does it mean all new tenants? Yes, if the Arbitrators say so. These three men have absolute power to define what existing tenant means. They may condemn every existing tenant as a planter and kick him out arbitrarily. I believe there are some cases where there are planters in the strict sense of the term. Landlords having war waged against them, in spite of the advantages of the tenantry, have put in men to hold their laud as a garrison. These are planters in the strict sense of the word, and I venture to say that these are the men who ought not to be turned out. What better use could you put laud to, what better crop could you raise upon it—than loyal men instead of disloyal men—men who will fulfil their obligations instead of men who break them? What better use could you make of laud than that? What, in the history of the world, has been so strong for the improvement of the world as planted races? And in Ireland, of all places in the world, toicondemn planters! Is not all Ulster populated by planters, or the descendants of planters? Are not the whole of the King's County and Queen's County populated with the descendants of planters in another epoch of the sad history of Ireland? And all over the South and West even are there not by thousands men who are the descen-
  690
  dauts of planters? Those are the very best elements of the Irish people. What silly nonsense it is to denounce planters. I am not speaking now of its injustice in the way of dealing with men who had done nothing against your law. I am talking of the folly and idiocy of legislation directed against that element in the population which you know to be always the best and the strongest. Who are these men who are denouncing planters? Why, they are very often the descendants of planters themselves. Talk of the Celts in Ireland! There is hardly a pure Celt in the whole of Ireland. Is Lamella purely Irish name? Is Redmond, or Dillon a purely Irish name? Are they not obviously of Norman origin? I will venture to say that they are all the descendants of planters, which, in successive waves during seven centuries, have populated Ireland. Then what is your prospect of the future? Lord Balfour asked that question. I hope it will be answered. The Solicitor General said all our Irish legislation had failed, because it always had had the effect of placing a certain number of Irishmen in a most unfair position in comparison with their neighbours. The unequal distribution of benefits! I ask your Lordships to test the future under this Bill. Look at the new inequalities which' you will set up. I admit the validity of the Solicitor General's objection. I think that if you pass partial legislation which gives to one man and does not give to his neighbour,or gives very much to one and very little to his neighbour, you raise up a false standard of expectatation and plant deep the roots of discontent. Look what you are doing under this Bill. First of all you have men favoured by the arbitrary selection of a triumvirate giving no reasons. My noble Friend did not tell us whether that triumvirate would make a selection or restore the evicted tenants all in a lump; but I assume that he thinks there would be some selection. The principles of that selection are not laid down by the Bill. They are absolutely in the breasts of three men. My noble Friend says he knows them to be excellent, respectable men. I have no doubt they are; but I object to this new Liberal doctrine, giving away the lives and property of men to individuals whom you know, forsooth, to be excellent and respectable men. But I

  691
  am now asking what satisfaction do you think will be given by the arbitrary selection of these men among those who are not reinstated? You are there setting up a new inequality. Then look at the inequality as between farms which have been let and farms which have not been let. In the case of farms which have not been let, you turn out the landlord neck and crop, but in the case of farms which have been let to planters or genuine tenants the former tenants are not to be restored if the existing tenants object. On what principle of justice do you defend that? Do you think the claim put forward by Mr. Redmond will not be pushed to the hilt by those men who could not get back their land because it had been what they called "grabbed"? Do you think they will not be savage at the treatment they have received, and renew the agitation which you pretend to satisfy? The expectation is futile and childish in the highest degree. Then look at another inequality. Why does the Bill go back to 1879? I was myself a party to the Act of 1870, and I am very glad to remember that it was working extremely well when it was upset by the Act of 1881. A great number of tenants were undoubtedly dispossessed under the operation of the Act of 1870. Why do you pick out those ejected during the last two years of that Act and do not take those ejected during the seven preceding years? But why stop at the Act of 1870? Why do you not go hack through the seven centuries during which it has been falsely said England has misgoverned Ireland? But there is another inequality, if possible, even more serious. Look at the men who have purchased their farms. Under the Church Act and various other Acts passed since 1881 a large number of men have purchased farms at high prices. Many others have purchased farms which tenants had been obliged to sell under danger of eviction, and for which they very often paid less than if they had been bought in the open market. Why, will not all these men come back and say, "We demand that our farms which we sold for a comparatively small price should be restored, or that we should receive the money which we lost by forced sale"? You will, then, I say, by this Bill create new inequalities, new
  692
  injustices, and new sources of discontent. Lastly, what are you to do with the new evictions of the future? The 400,000 tenants of Ireland will, in the ordinary economic course of things, provide a new crop of bankrupts. Are they never to be evicted, and, if they are, will they not come and ask to be reinstated in the same manner that those who were evicted before them were reinstated? Is there any end to the complaints and demands due to the inequalities you are now setting up? The tribunal you are setting up is only to last for two years. But it will necessarily last longer than two years, and, therefore, you will have two permanent Commissions in Ireland— one to declare what shall be a fair rent, and another to let men off for not paying it. Legislation of quite an Irish character! What a triumph of Irish ideas! I say, then, that this Bill—and it is my most serious complaint against it—will destroy the existing Land Act of 1881, and will substitute nothing for it. "Chaos" is the word which represents the condition it would bring about. As to the larger aspects of the question, I wish to say that I have some hope that it will not be without a great effect. We are now in a crisis of the political world, in which Parties are being reconstructed. This Bill will help it. It is a perfect foretaste of the kind of legislation which we may expect from an Irish Parliament; it is a perfect specimen of the legislation which we are now having under a Government which is the servant of an Irish faction. There is not a principle governing human society which is not violated by this Bill, not a principle of common sense which is not abandoned in it, not a truth of history which is not set at naught by it, and that is what you will have in Ireland and what you are having now under the present Government. I ask the noble Earl the Prime Minister, the head of the Government—or who is called the head of the Government—though I have some doubt as to how far he is the head of the Government—he has the place and patronage, but I do not think he has the power—is this Bill the product of his clear intellect, of his calm sense, is it even the product of his sense of the ridiculous? The noble Earl the other day was pleased to allude to the place in which I sit in this House. It was a trivial circumstance for the Prime

  693
  Minister of England to refer to, but if he wishes to know why I sit here on the Opposition side of the House I will tell him. I sit on this Bench because I opened my career in this House on that Bench in the year in which he was born, and during the time he was passing from his long clothes to his small clothes. I sat upon that Bench in company with men whom I loved and have lost, and I never expect to be associated with any others who can be compared with them. For 32 years I sat on the Benches opposite as a Member of the Liberal Party, and I claim to know what Liberal principles are as well as any of the noble Lords opposite. I do not recognise in them my leaders—to teach me what are Liberal principles. Where did the Liberal Party get this new love for secret, arbitrary, irresponsible tribunals dealing with the lives, and liberties, and properties of the people? My Lords, my notion of Liberal politics is this—that we should always be on the look-out for every new idea, and for every old idea with a new application which may tend to meet the growing requirements of society. Hitherto I have seen the Leaders of the Liberal Party like men standing on a watch tower to whom others could apply and ask, not" Watchman, what of the night? "but" Watchman, what of the morning and of the coming day? "Where are you standing? Nowhere; but sitting on the fence, perpetually thinking on which side of it you will put your feet down in order to collect votes and unite the cabals of the different Parties in the House of Commons. Look at the speech of the noble Earl the other day. Why does lie expect me to sit where I had sat for the last 32 years? Am I expected to sit behind him with his teaching to the Liberal Party? Look at his speech at Edinburgh—
  "Here I am, gentleman, the Prime Minister of England. I have no enthusiasms of my own: I ask you for impulse. I have no opinions of my own; I ask of you direction."
  He sought for both impulse and direction, not in his own excellent head, not even in the great traditions of his Party, but from the people who happened to be gathered in a public meeting before him. Am I to sit behind men of that kind, and am I to receive from them the principles of the Liberal
  694
  Party? No, my Lords, I cannot. The Party that claims to be Liberal, I hold, has been descending rapidly from its once high position. My Lords, Whig and Tory are names that are now pretty well played out. I have been born a Whig, and have been attached to the Whig Party for many years. That Party has passed through many periods of great trial, and among them was the period of Mr. Pitt. Mr. Pitt called himself a Whig to the last. He claimed to belonging to that great historical Party, and I say that, with all its faults, descending, as it sometimes has done, to the position of a faction, to that Party in the main England owes her constitutional liberties, and I am proud to have belonged to it. But what do I see on the Benches near me? I see my noble Friends on the Conservative side of the House, and I say that in fundamental matters they are more really Liberal than noble Lords opposite. I never hear from them any argument in favour of narrow, irresponsible, secret tribunals dealing with the liberties of the people. And therefore, my Lords, I say, following the advice of the noble Lord opposite in his famous speech at Paisley—out of which he has tried to wriggle on many occasions, but most ineffectually—I dissent and depart from men who have debased the position of English Ministers—debased is perhaps too strong a word for the noble Lord; I will say lowered—who have lowered the position of English Ministers by a servile compliance with an Irish faction, by the sacrifice, as I have shown your Lordships to-day, in this Bill of every principle which has hitherto governed the Liberal Party. There is another thing with regard to which I have hope from this Bill. The Bill will not pass this House, and its rejection will strengthen our position in the country; for the country has no interest in this measure. In so far as it understands the Bill at all, it sees that it is a monstrous violation of every principle. It is against the will of the predominant partner, as the noble Lord called England; it is against the will of England by a large majority, and there are indications that it is against the will of Scotland too. The noble Earl lifts his eyebrows in surprise. But I have just returned from Scotland; I have held conversations with men who are

  695
  advanced Liberals, and I heard one of them say, "I am a bit of a Radical, but this Irish Bill I cannot stomach." This Bill will, I hope, do you harm in the country, because it is such a barefaced exposure of the arts of arbitrary government. Well, my Lords, I rejoice that twice within 12 months this House has had a great duty to perforin—we have delivered Ireland from a great peril, and we have redeemed England from a great disgrace.
  LORD MONKSWELLsaid, that, in any circumstances it would be with the greatest diffidence that he would address the House in a Debate of this description; but as the Bill came from that Department of the Government which he represented in the House, he desired to say a few words in support of it. He was sorry the noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill had not attuned his speech to the tone of the noble Earl who introduced it. He was sorry the noble Lord should have made what he thought was an exasperating speech. The noble Lord certainly used language of the strongest possible description in denunciation of the Bill. The noble Lord said the Bill was an "infamy too great for words." And why did he give it that description? Because, he said, it rendered the condition of the planters worse than before. But the Bill did nothing of the kind. On the contrary, it made the position of the planters better than before. By compelling unreasonable landlords to come to terms with their tenants it tended to do away with the animosity with which planters were regarded; and therefore, so far as the Bill operated at all on the planters, its operation was distinctly favourable to them. Indeed, if he thought it well to retort on the noble Lord the language he had used in regard to the Bill, he would say—and he thought he could say so with a great deal more reason—that the rejection of the Bill would be, from the point of view of the planters, "an infamy too great for words." The noble Lord also complained that the Bill made no distinction with regard to the tenants it proposed to reinstate. The Bill appointed Arbitrators; the Government thought their hands ought to be as little fettered as possible, and if the Arbitrators were to be trusted at all they could be trusted to deal with those questions and difficulties which the noble
  696
  Lord had put forward. The noble Lord contended that there ought to be in the Bill Rules to regulate the procedure of the tribunal. But if that were done it would be only making more difficult the position of the Arbitrators, for they would have to interpret rules of procedure, which after they had passed through the ordeal of the House of Commons might be framed in such a way that it would not be easy to interpret them. The position occupied by the Government in regard to the Arbitrators was, as he had said, that they ought to have as free a hand as possible. The noble Duke who followed the noble Lord said that the Bill had no merits, and less than no authority. It appeared it had less than no authority because what the noble Duke called "the gag" was applied in the House of Commons. If the noble Duke held the view that a Bill which passed the House of Commons under "the gag"—or rather under the threat of "the gag," for "the gag" in this instance was not used at all—had no authority, he did not quite understand how the noble Duke supported the actions of the late Conservative Government in Ireland under their Perpetual Coercion Act, which was passed by means of "the gag" in the House of Commons. If the noble Duke was consistent—and he seemed to think that consistency was a very great virtue indeed—he would have condemned the Perpetual Coercion Act of the Conservative Government as an Act of no authority. The noble Duke complimented the noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty on his high character; but, all the same, he did not hesitate to accuse the noble Earl of a disingenuous attack on the Irish landlords. It might have been an attack which gave the noble Earl great pain to make; it was an attack that was made in the hearing of a great many Irish landlords who were perfectly capable of answering the noble Earl; but why the noble Duke should call the attack disingenuous it was difficult to understand. He would not follow the noble Duke in his disquisitions on the Laud Act of 1881, except to say that though the noble Duke complained of it—it was very natural that that Act should be followed by other Acts. It did not follow from that circumstance that the

  697
  Act of 1881 was a failure. The Act of 1881 was the best measure that could have been put forward at the time, because Parliament was then only in the initial stages of understanding the Irish Land Question; and when they got to understand that question more, other Acts were passed to do away with the anomalies and injustices which the Act of 1881 had left untouched. The objection which was taken to the Bill on principle would, no doubt, be of great force if it could be substantiated. It was said that the Bill put a premium upon fraud and lawlessness. He did not deny that the Plan of Campaign bad been called an illegal conspiracy by a high judicial authority, but there was another legal pronouncement which put the Plan of Campaign in a different light. The Mathew Commission, in Section 41 of their Recommendations, said—
  "Whatever may be said as to the character of the combination into which the tenants entered, we do not think that, as a body, they deserve to be stigmatised as fraudulent and dishonest."
  Those two pronouncements were not so difficult to reconcile as perhaps they might appear at first sight. He looked upon the matter in this way—that they must discriminate between the tenants who joined the Plan of Campaign and the leaders who organised the Plan of Campaign. The leaders, no doubt, incurred great responsibility, but their conduct was not at issue before the House. What was at issue was the conduct of the tenants who had joined the Plan of Campaign — the tenants who were called by the noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill "the dupes of the Plan of Campaign." The noble Duke had acknowledged, very fairly, that the Plan of Campaign was a great social war, and had said that he would not object to any fair Bill for the reinstatement of those tenants, simply because they had joined the Plan of Campaign; and in that the argument of the noble Luke was to he preferred to the argument of the noble Lord. But let them for a moment consider the question of the morality of the tenants who had joined the Plan of Campaign. There was not the slightest doubt that those tenants were—whether rightly or wrongly—smarting severely under a sense of injustice, and that they followed the advice
  698
  of their most trusted and revered leaders. The morality of the Plan of Campaign depended, to a great extent, on the bona fides of that sense of injustice; and that the tenants had that bonâ fide sense—whatever might have been the merits of the case—could hardly be denied. Under those circumstances, surely it was natural for the tenants to follow the advice of their leaders? He asked the House to put a charitable construction on the acts of those tenants. A well-known exemplary Prelate used to say, whenever he saw a man who had succumbed to temptation—"But for the grace of God I might be in that man's place." He wanted that to be the spirit in which their Lordships approached the question of the morality of the Plan of Campaign. The noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill very fairly acknowledged that, from a certain point of view, the conduct of the Nationalist leaders with regard to the reinstatement of the evicted tenants might be considered to be chivalrous. He, therefore, put it to noble Lords opposite whether, after all, the action of the tenants joining the Plan of Campaign might not have been dictated, however mistakenly, by generous motives? Suppose the Irish landlords were placed in the position of those tenants, was it perfectly certain that they would not have succumbed to the temptation to which the tenants had succumbed? It appeared to him that those characteristics which led landlords to take an extreme view with regard to the rights of landlords led tenants to take an extreme view with regard to the rights of tenants. Surely it was too much to talk about the immorality of the tenants in following the advice of their leaders in the Plan of Campaign. Surely it was not an unamiable or a vicious disposition to take upon trust, or with too great confidence, the advice of those with whom one was associated? Surely, too, it was only fair that they should recognise that a person might take a very strong view, even a violent view, of one side or the other of this question of the laud in Ireland and yet be perfectly honest in his convictions. One word about Section 13 of the Act of 1891. It appeared to him that the Conservative Government themselves, when they introduced that section, must have taken the same view with regard to the

  699
  conduct of the Plan of Campaign tenants that he was endeavouring to impress upon their Lordships' House. The noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill complained that it proposed to give privileges to those who had indulged in lawlessness and disorder in Ireland. Why that was precisely what the Conservative Government did by Section 13 of the Act of 1891, because by that section the Conservative Government gave to the tenants of the Plan of Campaign special facilities for obtaining public money, and some was obtained even by tenants who had forcibly resisted eviction. Surely it was too much to expect that the Government should place an insuperable barrier to the restoration of these tenants to their holding simply because they had yielded to the Plan of Campaign! Then with regard to compulsion, the Government thought that the experience of the past taught them that compulsion was necessary. They contended that compulsion was necessary because very few tenants had availed themselves of Section 13 of the Act of 1891. He would not trouble their Lordships with any further observations, except to say that the situation was undoubtedly extremely critical, and he hoped and trusted that the House would co-operate with the Government in endeavouring to remedy a state of things that constituted a constant menace to the tranquillity and well-being of Ireland.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONsaid, that no one would really complain of the tone and temper of the speech to which they had just listened, but he ventured to think that some of them would like to have had it infused by a little more practical acquaintance with the subject-matter of the Debate, though he admitted that to deal with a subject-matter so intricate and difficult would tax the powers of any speaker. He had for the last 24 years had the honour of a seat in that House, and ho believed since he first entered it there had not been a single Session in which there had not been some legislation attempted, more or less, with respect to Ireland. They had got during that period four Laud Bills, and he was afraid to say how many other measures affecting the land of Ireland.
  700
  He confessed that he had come to the conclusion that any legislation, by whomsoever proposed, to be really beneficial must comply with four conditions: It must be founded upon precedent and experience; it must be founded on sound principle; it must have some promise of finality in it, and the machinery by which it was proposed to work its provisions must be adequate to the ends in view. He ventured to say that the Bill now before the House fulfilled no one of these conditions in any respect. Take the first—the question of precedent. He knew it was asserted that the Compensation for Disturbance Act of 1880, the Land Act of 1881, the Arrears Act of 1882, were precedents in point. But he would point out that every one of those measures was limited to holdings, the Poor Law valuation of which did not exceed £30, whilst the scope of the Bill before the House had been enlarged, so as to include all holdings of every character which had been rendered vacant by any means whatever since 1879. He should be curious to know whether the noble Lord on the Woolsack, when he took part in this Debate, could quote any precedent for a grant of public money, under these circumstances, to a body of men who had been declared by the highest judicial authorities to have taken part in an illegal conspiracy? He agreed that Clause 13 of the Act of 1891 did go further than the Acts to which he had referred, but that Act was optional and not compulsory in its character, and the option which was given under it was to be exercised within six months. It was said that that Act had failed. To a certain extent it had failed; but why? Because the popular leaders in Ireland had done their very utmost to prevent those whom it was intended to benefit from taking advantage of its provisions. Some of the tenants did take advantage of its provisions, but the great mass of them followed the bad advice which was given to them by those who had given them bad advice before, and they declined to avail themselves of the provisions of the Act; therefore, there was really no precedent in point in that Act for legislation so drastic and so exceptional in its character as the Bill before the House. He now came to a question of principle. Could it be said that any sound principle was established by a Bill which passed over

  701
  the great majority of tenants who, under circumstances of exceptional temptation, and sometimes of exceptional peril, fulfilled their obligations, and which promised a boon to those who had done none of these good things, but who were led away by bad advice, and who had repudiated obligations which they had entered into voluntarily, and had thereby got evicted from their holdings? And yet to these latter parties it was proposed by this Bill to apply not only public moneys—to which their Lordships were, perhaps, not entitled to object if the people's Representatives in the other House chose to vote away English money for such a purpose—but the Bill also proposed that the remains of the funds of the Irish Church, that was originally devoted to spiritual uses, should be diverted from those objects by Act of Parliament, and should now be dissipated by this Bill upon people who had entered into a conspiracy declared to be illegal by the highest authorities, and stigmatised as unjust by the head of the Church to which these tenants belonged. Surely there never was such a travesty of justice as this. He was old enough to remember when Mr. Gladstone, who was then Prime Minister, denounced a very moderate proposal for the allocation of a portion of this Church surplus for a very different purpose as a fraud upon the important interests which were created under the Disestablishment Act. He observed that the same opinion seemed to be held by the present Government in the case, at least, of the Welsh Church, because, when he turned to the Welsh Disestablishment Bill—one of the abortive measures of the Government—he found the express statement that under no circumstances was any portion of the Church funds derived from the disestablishment of the Welsh Church to be applied to any purposes in the reduction of rates, so carefully guarded were those funds. And yet it was proposed by this Bill to dissipate the funds of the Irish Church for very unworthy objects. With regard to the question of finality, he did not for a moment deny that it was impossible to achieve finality in politics. They could not bind the next generation; but what they could say was that, during the continuance of the present generation, no attempt should be made to tamper with the provisions of an
  702
  Act passed in that generation. But no assurance of that kind was given in the present Bill. The Representatives of the people of Ireland had been challenged over and over again to say whether, if any compromise could be arrived at under the Bill, they would be content to hold out the olive branch and stop the land war in Ireland. What was the answer? The answer was either silence or a distinct refusal to give any pledge of that kind or character. He saw also that the Bill found no favour even with those whom it was intended to benefit. It was only that morning he was reading an account of a meeting of evicted tenants held in Cork at the close of last week. What happened at that meeting? The President denounced as traitors to their country the Nationalist Members, who had permitted dust to be thrown in their faces by the Government; he said he was convinced that such a Bill would not pass; but if it did, it fell far short of the demands of the evicted tenants which were embodied in the Bill introduced by Mr. O'Kelly last Session. That was not encouraging; but this gentleman went even further, for he said that the time had come when it was necessary for the tenants to take action for themselves, when the grabber should be made to feel the power of public opinion, and when he should be let severely alone by the whole population. Everyone acquainted with Ireland knew what was meant by such expressions as "organised public opinion," and "letting them severely alone." They meant boycotting, and their Lordships well knew what stood behind boycotting. But there was another party in the question who ought to receive some consideration from their Lordships' House. Those were that numerous body of respectable men who had taken evicted farms as a matter of business. There was a meeting of those who had taken such farms, also in the City of Cork within the last 10 days, and with one voice they declared that no greater injustice could be inflicted upon them than that which was inflicted upon them indirectly by this Bill. He asked, therefore, if the Representatives of popular opinion in Ireland in another place, if the evicted tenants themselves, and if the new tenants all with one voice rejected these proposals what chance was there of there being any finality

  703
  whatsoever under the Bill? Hitherto every concession that had been made by Parliament had been used as a stepping-stone to something else. There had been two remarkable instances of this, both of which were initiated by Bills in their Lordships' House. One was the admission of leaseholders to the benefits of the Act of 1881, from which they had been deliberately excluded by Mr. Gladstone under the original Act, and the other was Clause 13 of the Act of 1891. Both of these were voluntary concessions made by a Government who commanded not only a majority in this House, but also a majority in the other branch of the Legislature, and not the smallest thanks had been given for these concessions by those who had benefited. On the contrary, it was now asked that an advance should be made on the step taken in the Act of 1891, without any of the safeguards which were in that Act. With regard to the machinery by which it was proposed to work this Bill, that machinery seemed to be founded upon the same principle which Sidney Smith once described as government by commission composed of three barristers of seven years' standing, whom he termed the favourite animals of the Whigs. They had in the tribunal under the Bill three Commissioners. Of the principal member of the tribunal, Mr. Piers White, he could not but speak with respect. He was the leading member of the Equity Bar, and was a man of impartiality, but one who, up to the present, had had Very little experience of the Land Question. Mr. Fottrell, the second Commissioner, was undoubtedly a man of ability and of intimate acquaintance with all the bearings of the Land Question, but he had not been hitherto known as a special sympathiser with the landlords. As regarded the third Commissioner, he thought the less said of him the better. The warmest admirers of Mr. Greer must admit that a more thorough-going partisan could not have been selected. And these gentlemen were entrusted with what? In the first place, they were to be entrusted with the reinstatement of all tenants where the Land Courts were in the possession of holdings or where the holdings were derelict. In the second place, they were to be entrusted with the compensation of those tenants whom they could not reinstate because their farms
  704
  were full and the new tenants objected; and, in the third place, they were to be entrusted with the compensation of those tenants, not only with a money value, but, by the assistance of the Land Commissioners, with other farms purchased for them in some other district of Ireland. The whole management of a very large portion of Ireland would pass under their hands, and, in addition to all these things, by another clause, if the landlord called on the tenant to purchase after reinstatement, and the tenant agreed to do so, they were to be empowered to band in the case to the Land Commission, who would be bound to effect a purchase. Well, what would be the result of this if the Act was largely availed of? If the Commissioners took a lenient view, or what would be called, perhaps, by some a "wide" view of the subject, he ventured to think that the money which was available for purchase under the last Act of Parliament passed for that purpose would prove insufficient for the end in view, and Parliament would be further asked to supplement that by a further grant of public money. But supposing that were not the case, were ever powers so large and legislation so drastic entrusted to a Board of three gentlemen, none of whom had yet taken the first rank in public life, and none of whom had risen to the Bench? He could hardly conceive anything more serious than the vista which was thus opened up both to landlord and tenant, because mistakes once made could not be redressed, and injustice if it had once been done on the one side or the other would remain, and could not be remedied. Some allusion had been made by his noble Friend who had just sat down to objections to the title of the Bill. That seemed to him (Viscount Midleton) to have been a drafting blunder. The alteration in the title was not what was objected to, but the alteration in the scope of the Bill. In his first statement Mr. Morley had estimated that the number of tenants affected by the Bill was 4,000, of whose farms from 1,400 to 1,500 were in the hands of new tenants. It now appeared that the figure had been under-estimated. They had to go back to 1879, and it turned out that the number of cases in which tenants had left their holdings had not been 4,000, but nearer 20,000; the

  705
  exact number was still to be defined, and these cases were not only of tenants who were still in Ireland, and even of those who had gone to America and other countries and were to be permitted to return, but of tenants who had voluntarily sold their occupations to their landlords. These might, now claim to be off their bargain and to be reinstated. The sole safeguard against monstrous injustice was the chance that two of the three Arbitrators would refuse to listen to unreasonable applications. This power was altogether too great to place in the hands of any three men or of a tribunal not only in Ireland, but the highest in the land—namely, their Lordships' House. Yet this was the Bill which Parliament was asked to pass at the fag-end of a Session—brought in when Members of the other House were weary—never having been introduced in a, practical form till July, having been laid on the shelf since it was read a first time, and those who wished to discuss it in the other House were subjected to the gag and the guillotine. Anything like fair discussion was absolutely refused. The other House was told that if by a particular day the whole matter was not concluded the Bill would be passed through all its stages by the power of the majority. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had animadverted very strongly on the impropriety of their Lordships' House's cognizance of the way in which business was conducted in another place. And he (Viscount Midleton) entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman. He thought it entirely beyond the province of their Lordships' House. But this, at least, he might say: that if any compromise had been rejected and any Amendment had been ref used, and the greater proportion of the Amendments had not been discussed at all, the Bill came up to their Lordships under very different circumstances from what it would have come up under after a free and fair discussion had been given to it in another place. It stood to reason that a Bill dealing with such important interests needed very careful attention and discussion. Some Members of the Government only began to understand the Bill after it had been in the House for a considerable time, and after what he had heard that night he was inclined to doubt whether some of them understood it yet. All
  706
  he could say was that a more complicated piece of legislation, one affecting wider interests and going down to deeper principles, it had never been his misfortune to encounter. A great deal had been heard in the course of the discussion of the "irreconcilables" in Ireland. The only irreconcilables whom lie had ever come in contact with were those who were determined that there should be no landowners at all in Ireland. Speaking of the Irish landlords as a class, lie was pursuaded that they were not irreconcilables of any sort or class. Ninety-nine hundredths of the landowners were only too anxious to bury the hatchet, and to put an end to an unhappy dissension which they had neither initiated nor fomented, but for which those who declared themselves their worst enemies were responsible. Not only were the dissensions not begun by the landlords, nor continued by them, but at the earliest possible moment they would be happy to put an end to them. They had a real and heartfelt sympathy for many of the deluded men who had been misled and had adopted the courses they had pursued through the advice of men whom they had trusted. He believed that any measure drawn in a fair and equitable form which proposed to deal with such a question would receive not only the hearty, but the active support of the great mass of the Irish landowners. Individuals these might be—though he had not come across them—who might object, but there were individuals who were not to be taken as samples of the class to whom they belonged. But had any such offer been made? Finality in this matter had been repudiated by those who considered themselves qualified to speak for the Irish tenants. It had been notorious that if the Bill contained compulsory powers it would not be accepted by those who sat on the Opposition side of the House. If, even at the eleventh hour, there was the slightest chance of the withdrawal of the compulsory clause, if there had been a semblance of promise on the part of Her Majesty's Government that they would endeavour to secure a full discussion in the other branch of the Legislature for the clauses and Amendments which had not yet been discussed at all, he believed that the matter might still be settled. But

  707
  no such hope had been held out, and no such hope would be held out, because Her Majesty's Government dared not risk it. The Government dared not offend the men who kept them in power; and so long as that view prevailed good and useful legislation for Ireland was impossible. Some day a statesman might arise who would be superior to the claims of Party, and who would endeavour, looking at it from a broad and statesmanlike point of view, to settle this difficult question. If so, he (Viscount Midleton) was sure he might be promised the active and hearty support of all who were interested in the welfare of Ireland. There was one sentence to which the Chief Secretary had given utterance which would find a response in the breast of everybody who had the interests of Ireland at heart—
  "Do not let these unfortunate men be made the pawns in the political game."
  That is exactly what they had been made for the last 15 years. But they had not been made the pawns in the political game by the Conservative Party. They had been made the pawns by professional politicians on the other side of the Channel, who thought they could use them with advantage—who no doubt, in some instances, believed they were serving their country by inducing these unfortunate men to join in an agitation which could have but one result, and which had had the result which might have been anticipated—namely, their ruin, more or less complete. He believed that in those who owned the land in Ireland there was no bitter feeling—nothing but a desire to bury the memories of the past, and to restore those amicable relations which used to exist all over Ireland between landlord and tenant, and which he was thankful to say in many parts of Ireland still subsisted. But if that were to come about, remedial legislation must not be accompanied with injustice, and must not be launched at the head of Parliament at a time when it could not be properly considered. If he saw the slightest prospect that this Bill would really be for the benefit of the country his voice would be raised in its favour even now. But he could not see that it would be. The Bill was founded on no precedent. It was contrary to the lessons of experience, and there was no principle underlying it. There was no finality in
  708
  it, and he was convinced that, if passed, it would be simply used as leverage by which further and still more objectionable measures would be demanded as a matter of right. Nor was the machinery proposed sufficiently strong or impartial for the task assigned to it. He regretted that one more opportunity of healing divisions in Ireland had not been availed of. One more chance had gone which, if it had been differently utilised by noble Lords opposite and their supporters, might have been successful; therefore, he should feel compelled, when the Division was called, to vote with his noble Friend below him.
  LORD MUSKERRYsaid, the measure which was now before their Lordships was one calculated to do immense harm to Ireland. In the past years English statesmen by their legislation encouraged disloyalty, dishonesty, and crime in Ire-laud. This Bill was simply a continuation of the same disastrous policy. Was there in either House a man having any stake in Ireland, or any regard for her welfare, who supported the Bill? Who were the Irish Members who voted for it in the other House? What stake had they in the country? Had they an interest in seeing Ireland prosperous and contented? When addressing their Lordships last year he quoted from speeches made by Irish Members who had supported the Government, showing clearly what the real meaning and object of the land agitation was—namely, the destruction of English power in Ireland. The speeches of the Nationalist Members were very mild when made in England compared with their words in Ireland and America. It seemed incredible that statesmen could bring forward such a measure as this to restore men to farms from which they were evicted for non-fulfilment of their just and lawful obligations; and remember that many of these men refused to pay their rents and let themselves be evicted not because they were unable to pay, but under the advice and at the instigation of those who were supporting the Government in the other House. The Government wished to restore those who acted dishonestly, and to do this in many cases they must turn out honest and industrious men from their homes. They were teaching and had taught a fine lesson to the people of

  709
  Ireland. "Agitate; make a disturbance; break laws both human and Divine, and the Government will give you what you ask. But be honest and law-abiding, and the exigencies of public policy prevents the Government from protecting you or guarding you from robbery; you are no use to the Government. You are not represented by their friends and supporters." This might be state man ship, but it was not statesmanship that would do good to Ireland. The dupes of the Irish Nationalists were to be restored at the expense of the honest men. This was neither honourable or just. How many of the noble Lords who were supporting this Bill really knew anything of Ireland; how many of those who voted for it in the other House knew anything of the country? He did not know if the noble Earl at the head of the Government had ever been to Ireland. The noble Earl had admitted that he was not certain of anything with regard to Ireland, and he (Lord Muskerry) was not aware if he knew Ireland or Ireland knew him except through the Press—unless indeed he had been at Punchestown. The noble Earl, in his speech on the Home Rule Bill, honoured him by mentioning his name. His noble Friend the Marquess of Waterford, speaking afterwards, informed the noble Earl that he was one of those who represented the loyal minority of the South and West of Ireland. Now, that was not a small minority, but it was so scattered as to be outnumbered in individual constituencies. Surely no Englishmen of any class, and much less their Lordships, would deny what he always understood was so dear to the English heart, and that was fair play and a fair hearing. Their legislation had practically left that minority no representation in the other House, and it was to their Lordships' House they must look to have the grievous wrongs they had already suffered brought before Parliament, and to protest against any further injustice. The English Government had shown no gratitude to the Loyalists of Ireland. The honour of England was often spoken of and often praised, but that honour had been sadly prostituted by statesmen in their dealings with the Irish landowners. Last year the Government were willing to commence the process of dismembering the
  710
  Empire to satisfy their Irish friends in the House of Commons. He would never believe that the great mass of the English people sanctioned that Bill, and unless the English character was greatly changed this Bill, to turn honest and industrious men out of their homes in order to reinstate defaulters, would not be to their liking either. How many of their Lordships, or how many of those who voted for this Bill in the Commons cared what happened in Ireland so long as they were not personally concerned? But they who lived there, they who had seen measure after measure passed (some passed, others proposed) fatal to the true interests of Ireland, they who had seen their property confiscated without compensation and for mere Party purposes, they took some interest both in the measures when they came before Parliament and in their working afterwards. He could well believe that in both Houses they were weary of Irish affairs: but whose fault was it that they were so persistently before the Government? It was their own. Give Ireland fair, just, and firm legislation, and they would no longer have such cause to complain. He might be speaking somewhat strongly, but it was the truth, and what one of the Government—if he were in his place, if he were one of those who had been so unjustly treated—what one of them would not use the same, or stronger, language? What language did their Irish friends use in speaking of Members of the Government? Take, for instance, a comparatively mild extract from United Ireland about Lord Spencer when he was Viceroy—
  "He" (Lord Spencer) "stuck at nothing— not at secret torture; not at subsidising red-handed murderers; not at knighting jury-packers; not at sheltering black official villainy with a coat of darkness."
  Why was this said of the noble Earl? He would tell them. Because the noble Earl did his duty fearlessly and like a true man—because, as a result of the action of the Government such a state of things had arisen as called for the most severe and drastic measures. Lord Spencer had to carry these measures out, and he did so in a way that gained him the admiration and respect of every loyal and honest man in the country, and that was more than some other Members of that Government could say. When Sir George

  711
  Trevelyan in one of his speeches used these words—
  "Why did Lord Spencer leave such a very hateful memory? I should imagine the reason was that he vindicated law and order"
  —he should have said who had the very hateful memory of Lord Spencer. They were the Government's own friends; the men at whose instance this Bill was before their Lordships, and the reason for their hatred was that the noble Earl vindicated law and order. Though noble Lords opposite might support this Bill they knew well that it was not an honest Bill, that it was not just. It was only a political weapon, and a very dirty one, too. Their Lordships had doubtless heard of the many agrarian murders which had stained Ireland. They had heard a little of the dastardly crime of maiming cattle, but they had not heard of the 100th part of the serious assaults, of the terror in which whole districts were kept by scoundrels who were too lazy to do honest work, and who expected that if they could only create disturbance enough they would get what they asked from the Government. It was all very well to hear of these things, but he fancied that if some of the Members of the Government lived in Ireland and witnessed the crimes done there—crimes which, in times gone by, their friends instigated and encouraged by their speeches—they would take a very different view of the situation. Did they see some of the results of their policy, they might consider if, for once, it were not well to sacrifice policy in the interests of justice. The Government practically evicted the Irish Church from her position as an Established and Endowed Church. If this Bill became law, was she to take advantage of it? There was one thing he would recommend to the serious consideration of the Government, and that was if they intended legislating for Ireland on the same lines that they had done hitherto, and were doing, they should provide some fund to keep the victims of their policy from starvation. They had been very generous with other people's property; but when it came to their receiving money, ah! then the Government would have its pound of flesh. Should their unfortunate debtor, through no fault of his, but as an outcome of the Government's policy, be unable to pay quit rent, tithe rents, or other charge,
  712
  what mercy did they show? The mercy that droppeth as the gentle rain from Heaven? No; in this case it was frozen rain, and neither blessed they that gave nor they that received. He could quote to their Lordships pages of extracts from speeches made on the Irish Land Laws by men who afterwards brought in and supported measures so different to the sentiments they expressed before, that it was difficult to believe they were the same men. Who was morally responsible for the agrarian crimes in Ireland? Those who by their legislation encouraged agitators to spread ruin through the country. It was said that it was never too late to mend, and he trusted that, as a sign that they in England might expect some fairness in the future, some consideration, some scant measure of justice as a sign that they might hope they would throw out this measure in its entirety.
  LORD VENTRYsaid, that after the able manner in which the shortcomings and danger and injustice of this measure had been exposed, he should have been well content to have given a silent vote against it; but residing as he did for a great part of the year in Ireland, and especially residing in one of those counties which were mentioned by name by the noble Earl who introduced the measure, he thought it his duty to say a few words and give a few reasons why he could not support it. He, for one, could not see the necessity of such a measure as this. He could understand that there were Party reasons why the Bill should be introduced. But that there were political reasons for its introduction of any great force he was prepared to deny. This question was always approached as if these evicted tenants, whatever their present position, were at the time of their conviction in a helpless and hopeless condition. Anybody who knew the practical working of the Land Laws in Ireland knew that it had been the constant habit of tenants who found themselves in difficulties to dispose of their interest in their holdings. That he could answer for; it was the common practice before the passing of the Act of 1881. Then, out of the North of Ireland—out of Ulster—it was accomplished with the consent of the owner. In Ulster the

  713
  tenant-right custom existed which enabled tenants to do so without that permission. But since the passing of the Act of 1881, the custom which previously was permissive became a statutory right on the part of the tenant, and that right often was exercised by him. But for one case in which it had been exercised recently it was availed of 20 times before that Act passed. And why? Because every obstacle was thrown by the political advisers of the people in the way of their adopting that remedy, and also for another reason—namely, because the tenants, from the character of recent legislation, and from the constant hopes that were held out to them of further legislation, had been led to believe that some boon, whether it might be the reduction of rent, or the abolition of rent, or whether it might be some specially-favoured system of purchase—whatever it might be, they had been living in hopes of some change being brought about by legislation. Therefore, naturally, when they got into difficulties they hold on, as was said, like grim death to their holdings, and refused to accept even an exorbitant price for their holdings when they could get it. There was nothing that an Irish tenant was more jealous of than that his neighbour should get the better of him. And they had a natural feeling that if they parted with their little holding to-day somebody else would hold it for nothing tomorrow. They therefore refused to avail themselves of the remedy which the law put into their hands to enable them to get out of their difficulties. He would like to give one recent instance to show the amount of money that a tenant might put into his pocket in this way. He had heard of a case quite recently in which a tenant paying £30 a year rent — the Poor Law valuation being £30, so that he was not rack-rented — was evicted owing several years' rent. He was induced to sell his interest, and he obtained for that £475. Out of that £475 a sum of £85 only was claimed on the part of the landlord. The man, therefore, who had held a holding at £30 a year went away with £390 in his pocket. Well, he (Lord Ventry) did not think the tenant under these circumstances had very much to complain of. There was no question that in 99 cases of 100, where the tenant
  714
  was evicted, if he sold the holding—not always to the highest bidder, but to a tenant approved by the landlord—he would go away with a substantial sum generally far more than the commercial value of his interest in the holding. So much for that. But he certainly had asked himself, whilst listening to the speech with which the noble Earl introduced the Bill, whether the Government ever really intended that the Bill should pass. His firm belief was that if they intended a Bill of this kind to pass they never would have introduced it into the House in the shape it had assumed. He could not conceive that they would willingly undertake the responsibility of managing the country after the passage of the Bill. The Bill would unsettle everything and settle nothing. The noble Earl had talked of the risks their Lordships ran in throwing out the Bill, and the consequences which would follow to Ireland. Well, whatever those consequences might be, he did not think that it would be the throwing out of the Bill that would be responsible for them. It would not be the Nationalist Party in Ireland, because in taking the course they had done they had only played a move in their game — a move which might or might not be a wise one on their part. It was an action which might fairly have been expected of them; but he could not understand that Her Majesty's Government should willingly undertake, as he had said before, the responsibility which would devolve upon them if the Bill passed for what would then be the position of tenants who had taken farms. Did the Government for a moment imagine that the evicted tenants in that case would sit still and rest content and allow matters to take their course? Would they not consider their grievance tenfold greater because it would have been indirectly admitted by Parliament that they had a grievance. And were not their Lordships well aware of the methods to which they would be likely to resort in that case to enforce what they more than ever would consider to be their rights? There was a Member of Her Majesty's Government who would naturally support the measure on whose estate an outrage was recently committed. That, he thought, showed that the Irish peasantry had not for-

  715
  gotten those methods. This outrage was a very systematic one, and not an affair of the moment. It was not a sudden outburst. He had reason to know that the man who was at present in custody, and who would be tried for committing that offence, did not reside within many miles of the place where the outrage was attempted. He believed it was committed in the County of Cork, and that the man was resident in the centre of Kerry. Well, if under present circumstances, with the restraint which had, by some means or another, been put on these hill-side men such an outrage occurred when that restraint was withdrawn, would this be an isolated case? Did they not think that that example was likely to be followed, and that gentle hints would be given to these so-called land-grabbers to quit their holdings? Was not a temptation almost held out—because there was a provision in the Bill by which the evicted tenants were encouraged to bring forward their cases and to take steps to bring about amicable settlements. Well, if it appeared that a primâ facie case was made out against these unfortunate land-grabbers would not there be a double justification in the minds of these men for taking strong action to enforce their behests? But he had also to say that, while there were a large number no doubt of these evicted tenants who were interested personally in the passage of such a measure as this, there were a very large number who were not so interested. He believed that in many cases the last thing that the neighbouring tenants would like to see would be the return of many of these persons to their holdings. He believed also that, in addition to the people who had taken the evicted farms, there were their friends and relations to be considered. Everyone who understood the state of agricultural society in Ireland knew the wheels within wheels which existed, and how marriages, family arrangements, and other influences were brought to bear on these transactions. They knew how it would not only be the land-grabber who would have to quit his holding, and how it would perhaps be a daughter, or sister or some other near relative of some honest rent-paying neighbour who would also feel aggrieved by a relative being turned out on the world. Of course, there were
  716
  some means contemplated of compensating the outgoing tenant, but everyone who knew the feeling which attached to occupancy amongst Irish tenants must know that that would be a very small consolation. Then, there was also the question of law-abiding, paying, tenants, and he was happy to say he knew a large number of them. What would be their feelings if they found that the evicted tenants obtained these advantages? Would they not in many cases feel that they were most unjustly treated, when they saw that they who had worked hard and paid their way and honestly met their obligations were having nothing done for them, but that all this special legislation was for people whom they knew to be little deserving of it? Therefore, it would not do to say that there were only so many hundreds of these so-called land-grabbers. The full effects of the Bill would extend far beyond them, and the measure would cause new difficulties and new troubles in addition to those with which they already had to cope. Then as to the method of dealing with this case. There was elaborate machinery in the Bill by which the Commissioners were to be first approached by the tenant; then the landlord was approached, and he had the alternative of insisting on the holding being bought, and so on. He observed that at the tail-end there was a provision by which the Commissioners, if they thought fit, could buy laud elsewhere for evicted tenants. Well, would it not be a much shorter way of dealing with this question at once to face it by offering to buy these farms from the owners? The Government could then reinstate the tenants on their farms, and in that way avoid all this complicated machinery. Of course, in saying that he was not admitting the justice of the compulsory portion of the Bill, and he still thought that if even such a measure as that he indicated were adopted it would be most unjust to the landlord to go beyond voluntary powers. He could not see the justice of taking from a landlord against his will land into which he was put in possession by due process of law. In many cases the landlords holding that land instead of being a disadvantage to the public might be quite the reverse. It might be an advantage to the rest of his property, and he could not see any

  717
  justice in taking it by force. As he had started by saying the evils of the Bill had been so thoroughly exposed by preceding speakers, he hardly thought he need say more. But he could not sit down without saying that if a reasonable, just, measure of a voluntary character could be brought forward which would deal fairly with this matter, he, for one, would certainly be delighted to support it. To do a great good he would be willing even to do a little wrong, but to do a great wrong for the sake of no good at all was quite another matter. He should certainly vote against the Bill as it stood, and in so doing would feel that he never gave a vote with a clearer consciousness that he was doing what was right and just.
  LORD RIBBLESDALEsaid, that up till now the speeches from the Opposition had teemed with objections to the Bill. The noble Duke (Duke of Argyll) told them that no one speech could exhaust the list of its demerits, but surely what one speech could not do a great many from the other side must have achieved. There had been a good many objections made to the Bill, some ingenious, some fanciful, and some very sound, practical, and arguable, but after all they resolved themselves into the question put to noble Lords opposite by Earl Spencer in moving the Second Reading—do you, or do you not, hold that the presence of these large bodies of evicted tenants in close proximity to their former holdings constitutes a social and administrative difficulty? If noble Lords opposite contended that no difficulty was thus created, or if they agreed with Mr. Chamberlain that the difficulty was quite insignificant, and might be dealt with by the 13th clause of the Act of 1891, then their attitude of negation with regard to, and their rejection of, the Bill would be quite logical; moreover, they would be accepting to the full the burden of responsibility and proof. But if they agreed with Mr. T. W. Russell and Mr. Courtney rather than with Colonel Saunderson, Mr. Chamberlain, and the Duke of Argyll, then the issue narrowed itself down to the particular means by which they desired to obtain a common end. He was afraid that there was no chance of their reading the Bill a second time, and equally he feared there was no chance of what the noble Marquess called on a former occa-
  718
  sion "beneficent after-thoughts" being added to it by mutual arrangement in its later stages. Still, in the meantime, he would like to try and persuade them if he could that the Bill even as it stood was not so full of dire contingencies as some more active and sanguine opponents, and especially so the noble Duke, assumed at the time when he—well, he would not say fortified, but rhetorically embellished, his able speech by taking up what he called higher ground—that is, the philosophical and historical arguments against the Bill. Personally, he would try to shun extremes, and render their Lordships' reasons why the Bill as drawn was worthy a Second Reading, and worth, indeed, passing into law. At any rate, whatever view noble Lords opposite took of the Bill, the supporters of the Government recognised that a social difficulty did exist in connection with the evicted tenants, and that the delay which necessarily occurred in dealing with it last Session had in no wise diminished it. They had therefore appointed and equipped a tribunal with wide discretion and sterling credit to deal with it. The noble Duke had called it a revolutionary tribunal, but even Mr. Chamberlain had not gone so far as that in another place. He, indeed, was good enough to admit that the Arbitrators might be impartial, but only for the purposes of a "chopping at logic" argument — to the effect that the more impartial they were the less there would be for them to do — he compared three impartial Irishmen to three black swans, and suggested that an evicted tenant with a fair and deserving case for reinstatement was an animal as extinct as the Dodo. But the impartiality of the Arbitrators, which Mr. Chamberlain only conceded for the sake of argument, was, in the view of the Government, a cardinal feature of the measure, and a guarantee against injustice. What were the causes of complaint against the Bill? He would at once dismiss such ingenious and fanciful ones put forward by the noble Duke, and would come at once to the reasonable and practical arguments. The Government had been told by The Times and the Unionist Press that the Irish Members were their masters, and by the noble Duke that they were the servants of au Irish faction. Surely that was a ridiculous contention. Once the Bill was read a

  719
  first time in the House of Lords, the noble Marquess opposite was, in a sense, their master by means of the majority behind him; he had Peers to the right of him and to the left of him; he had Peers behind him, and he was sorry to say he had Peers in front of him, all prepared to do his bidding, and to speak in support of any line he chose to advance upon. If, on the other hand, it was said that the Irish Members were the masters of the Government, in the sense that the Government had consulted and considered the views of the Representatives of the Irish people in regard to their legislation—and he, for one, did not know how far or how little they had been consulted—he could only say that he hoped they had been consulted. He could point to measures the success of which had been achieved through acting in concert with the Irish Members, and, as one instance, he might mention the Ashbourne Act of 1885 The noble Lord to whom the success of that Act was largely due was a most sympathetic member of a very sympathetic race; he always approached Irish questions with an enlightened appreciation, but it should not be forgotten that the great success of the Act was due to the fact that it was made a matter of friendly and proper negotiation between the Government and the Irish Members represented by Mr. Parnell. Again, there was the amending Statute of 1885 of the Act of 1883, which provided better accommodation for the labourers of Ireland, and gave Local Authorities compulsory powers to purchase land for cottages and gardens. That, too, was a matter of friendly arrangement and agreement. He might take higher ground, and say that the present peaceable condition of Ireland, which must be a source of satisfaction to noble Lords opposite, was attributable to the wish of the Government, as far as its Irish policy was concerned, to consult and consider the views and wishes of the Irish Members who represented the Irish people. As to the objection that there was no finality in the Bill, finality in legislation belonged to the same category as the Greek Kalends, and that was especially so in Ireland, where they had introduced a system of State intervention on behalf of an industry which depended on agricultural prices, and which, in these days
  720
  of agricultural machinery, of new markets and trade routes, foreign competition, and even of improved cattle breeds, was liable to be completely transformed almost in the twinkling of an eye. Then they were met with the argument that they were setting anew precedent, and that that precedent would prove a dangerous one. That he denied. It was also suggested that they were following no precedent, but that reminded him of what occurred upon the first Committee of their Lordships' House, of which he had the honour to be a Member. A leading counsel was reminded that there was no precedent for the course he was suggesting, and he at once retorted with the statement that a well-known Chairman of Committees was in the habit of declaring that they sat to make and not to follow precedents. What they were doing in this instance neither added to nor took away from the many anomalies which had unfortunately distinguished Irish legislation for the last few years. That legislation was a history of gift, of compromise, and of composition, and he could remember a Debate in that House, some few years previously, in the course of which a noble Lord, the late Lord Fitzgerald, in giving his hearty support to the Arrears Bill, admitted that it would not stand economic tests. This, however, was the outcome of 80 or 100 years of mismanagement and mistakes. Now, however, he came to a formidable and highly debateable objection taken by the noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill, and taken also by the noble Duke. It was, in effect, that by the Bill they were whitewashing the Plan of Campaign; that they were indeed doing even worse, and offering it a premium, that they would demoralise the whole country, and that their action would lead to all sorts of moral and social disorder. He did not wish to go back and open up controversy and recrimination, or he might suggest that Parliament itself was possibly a little accountable for some of the Plan of Campaign cases, by delaying to do until 1887 that which it had been urged strongly to do in 1886. But he would prefer to look forward and not backward. In as far as the Bill would whitewash the Plan of Campaign, it had been anticipated by the 13th clause of the Land Purchase Act of 1891, under which, according to the Report of the

  721
  Mathew Commission, 74 evicted tenants, all stalwart campaigners on the Ponsonby estates, were reinstated as owners in their former holdings by means of purchase money advanced by the State. He did not wish to go into details as to the terms, but any one examining Mr. Balfour's Bill would see that a remarkable advantage was given to the purchasing evicted tenant as compared with that given to the sitting unevicted tenant on the same sort of holding. Let him take a hypothetical instance—say a ease of a holding rented at £100ayear. An Evicted Plan of Campaign tenant on the Ponsonby estate would be allowed to buy, say, at 16 years' purchase if he did so. He only had to pay £64 a year interest and instalments, a betterment in his favour of £36 a year. He did not complain that noble Lords opposite were not right in passing such a clause, but he would ask why, if their action was right, the action of the present Government was wrong? The noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill said it would operate in a direction contrary to the maintenance of peace and security; but Mr. Carson bad told them in another place that the existence of these evicted tenants constituted a question having grave reference to the peace of Ireland. Which view were they to take? He preferred Mr. Carson's. Now he came to a much ridden "cheval do bataille." The 13th clause of the Act of 1891 re-instated the evicted tenants as purchasers of their former holdings, the purchase money being advanced by the Imperial Exchequer.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: They were re-instated with the consent of the landlord.
  LORD RIBBLESDALEsaid, that was so. What was the Land Purchase Bill of 1891? It was a Bill of very large scope; 33 millions sterling was the sum involved, and it was apparently advanced at the risk of the Imperial Exchequer, with the British taxpayer behind it. But, as a matter of fact, the British taxpayer was secured by a local guarantee in Ireland. Was that a voluntary guarantee? No; that guarantee was au absolutely compulsory one. Under that Act the Irish ratepayer became what they called in Yorkshire the bondsman of the purchasing tenant, but his
  722
  assent to the transaction was not asked; he backed a Bill he had never seen the face of. Noble Lords would remember that the necessary security was provided by a compulsory hypothecation of local resources and of Imperial contributions to Ireland for education, pauper lunatics, and similar purposes. And in addition to that the Lord Lieutenant was granted power to levy rates on a defaulting district without the consent of the ratepayers. Thus the principle of compulsion was found underlying the whole Act of 1891 as it affected Laud Purchase. The noble Lord (Lord Balfour) laid great stress on the importance of both parties lo a bargain being consulted, but in this ease the Local Bodies whose moneys were hypothecated were not consulted at all. He held there was very little to choose in principle between compulsion applied to land purchase in this way and compulsion applied to the re-instatement of the evicted tenant. "Compulsion" was no doubt as uncomfortable a word to the politician as the noble Marquess said "evolution" was comfortable to the man of science. But surely there was a little exaggeration in the view taken of compulsion by the Opposition. To listen to the speeches which had been delivered one would imagine that the Bill was compulsion all round, that the Arbitrators must arbitrate, that the former tenant must petition, that the now tenant must refuse all terms of adjustment, and that the landlord must show himself obstinate and stiff-necked to all temptations to compromise of any sort. The question had indeed been argued as if the word "may" in the Act had in every case been transformed into "must" or "shall." He might, however, point out that this was a Bill, as it affected landlords, which was drafted not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. Under it he did not believe that any landlord who had behaved with consideration or with mercy tempered with justice in regard to his tenants, its many had, had anything to fear, nor could he think that any thriftless or insolvent tenant had anything to expect, or had any claim to indulgence under the Bill. Mr. T. W. Russell, who spoke with great authority on this subject, had declared that under a voluntary measure 80 per cent, of the cases, to deal with which this measure had been

  723
  brought in, would be settled out of Court by arrangement. What was to prevent that now? He did not think the landlords would be so wrong-headed and foolish as lie understood Irish tenants had been in turning their backs on the benefits of legislation because of a point of honour. On the contrary, he believed that the fact of the Bill being compulsory would encourage voluntary settlements; people quickly developed an aptitude for avoiding litigation and delay, and strenuous and sincere opposition to a Bill usually meant self-adaptation to an Act. But admitting that the view of Mr. Russell was correct, there would, under a voluntary measure, remain a residue of cases for which no provision would be made. What was to become of this unlucky residue, and might it not consist of the very people whose cases ought to be met, men not unwilling to come to terms, but unable, and the fault lying at the landlords' door? The noble Marquess (Lord Lansdowne), who was to follow him in the Debate, always spoke with great ability and moderation in that House, and was admittedly a high authority on Irish land questions. He supported the compulsory principle of the Arrears Bill of 1882. Speaking on July 27 in that year be pointed out that the optional clauses as to arrears of the Bill of 1881 had failed because they were optional, and that in the then sore and irritated state of relations between laud-lord and tenant in Ireland they could not but fail, and then he went on to point out that the compulsory clauses of the Bill of 1882 were valuable to the Irish landlord because they would prevent his attitude towards his tenantry from being misrepresented and traduced. Lord Sel-borne in the same Debate held very much the same language. He fully recognised troubles and perplexities which the Irish landlords had had to face, and the excellent spirit with which, as a body, they had dealt with them. Of course, harsh, unreasonable, and stupid landlords were found in all countries. In Ireland, as in 1844 Lord Norman by pointed out, with a monopoly of the means of existence the landlord had a power which did not exist elsewhere—namely, the power of starvation. Declarations of that kind, however, were no longer made, such things could no longer be asserted with any justice, and
  724
  the rapacious landlords were in a miserable minority. But still there must be in Ireland, as elsewhere, a few harsh, unreasonable, and obstinate landlords-He did not think anybody would dispute that, and Mr. Chamberlain even had admitted the possibility that there-might be cases of gross injustice and hardship, and if there were such among the 20 per cent, of eases which were not likely to be voluntarily arranged, surely that was sufficient to justify the inclusion of the compulsory principle in the Bill. Indeed, it seemed to him that its omission would jeopardise its object and operation. He did not wish to detain the House at greater length. He would point out that land was life in Ireland, and that the possession of it meant to the peasantry the difference between starvation and existence. Landlords had a monopoly of the only article of consumption which the Irish peasant depended upon for his every-day life. Their Lordships could not speak about a free contract between the owner of land and the man who wanted land in Ireland any more than he could speak about free contract between, say, the Great Western Railway Company and a passenger when he wished to travel. But, in the case of the railway, Parliament protected the traveller in the same way as in the case of gas and water it protected the consumer, and this consideration might be advanced as a plea for the legislation which Parliament recommended to be adopted in Ireland in 1881. Whatever course their Lordships took, the attachment of the Irish tenant to the soil would remain undiminished; they could not evict a feeling, and he did not think that in their consideration of questions affecting the agrarian future of Ireland their Lordships could leave those sentimental considerations entirely aside. The Bill had been attacked on the ground that it was a political proposal. He was aware that this phrase was supposed to carry a sharp sting in its tail; but if a political proposal meant that it was an honest attempt to do something for the welfare of society, whether in Ireland or anywhere else, then he said that he welcomed a political proposal, and as such he supported the Second Reading of the Bill without hesitation, and he wished that he could persuade their Lordships to do the same.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: This Bill has been recommended to the House by the noble Lords who have supported it as a measure of healing, as the reparation of a great wrong, and as likely to bring back peace where discord at present prevails. If I were inclined to use a captious argument, I would say that we have heard that sort of thing before. It reminds mo of the words of a well-known character in one of Sir Walter Scott's novels—
  "These truces with the infidels make an old man of me. I remember three, and each of them was to last for 50 years."
  We can remember more than three truces with the clients of the noble Lords who sit behind me, and they were to last, not for 50 years, but were represented as a final settlement. I do not, however, wish to press that argument. I rather agree with the last speaker in believing that finality in these matters is somewhat difficult of attainment, and I will take it upon myself as an Irish landlord to say that, if we could really see our way to facilitate a reasonable settlement of this long-standing difficulty, I and others would be ready to assist to the best of our ability; and, in making that attempt, we would certainly not be too pedantic in regard to the principles on which we might insist, or be too much inclined to scrutinize jealously the terms which might be embodied in any proposal before the House. But what we complain of is that we are placed in the position of having to choose between the rejection of a measure which is proffered to us in the interests of humanity and the acceptance of proposals which we sincerely believe to be, both in principle and procedure, some of the most dangerous which has ever been submitted to Parliament. I say that, assuming that I am right in believing that the Bill before the House is in its essence a compulsory measure. It is to that principle of compulsion our main objection applies. I make no doubt your Lordships did not fail to notice the fly thrown over to us by the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of the Bill. I understood him, in the course of his opening speech, to say that although he himself believed a compulsory Bill was essential, he thought much good might be done by a voluntary measure; and then he added that it was open to the House of Lords to remodel the Bill
  726
  although, I think, the noble Earl said he deprecated such a course.
  EARL SPENCER: I said that a voluntary settlement might do a great deal towards settling this question on one condition—namely, were we assured that both parties to the contest would try loyally to carry it out.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: If that offer was intended by the noble Earl as a holding out of the olive branch I must say that I never saw an olive branch held out in such a timid or halfhearted manner. I do not profess to have a knowledge of draftsmanship, but it seems to me, after reading the Bill, that it would be altogether beyond the power of your Lordships to convert it, at this stage, from a compulsory into a voluntary measure. The Bill is structurally a compulsory Bill from beginning to end. There was, I remember, a popular caricature in which three British tourists were depicted inspecting Wallenstein's horse, which had been stuffed for exhibition to the public. The show-woman says to them, "The head and neck and legs and part of the body have been restored, but all the rest is the real horse." That is the kind of remodelling this Bill would have to undergo if we are to rise to the noble Earl's fly, and to endeavour to transmogrify it in Committee. Speaking entirely for myself, I say that I am ready to accept the noble Earl's challenge, and I will suggest to the noble Earl that, if he is really in earnest in his proposal, let him bring forward in black and white the Amendments which he is ready to propose or to accept from others. We shall then see if anything can be made of them. But for your Lordships to take upon yourselves the task of remodelling this Bill seems to me to be an altogether dangerous and improper proceeding on your part. In making that proposal it seems to me that the noble Earl was endeavouring to lure your Lordships away from the sound ground on which you are now standing to much more treacherous ground on which the real issues of the conflict would probably be entirely lost sight of. Before leaving the question of compulsion I must notice what has been said by the last speaker with reference to the discussion on the Arrears Act. The noble Lord reminded me that in that Debate I not only accepted the principle

  727
  of compulsion, but expressed myself favourable towards it. I ask the noble Lord not to imagine that I am opposed to compulsion in every case. There are certain cases in which compulsion may clearly be indispensable. In the case of the Arrears Act we had to deal with a large number of poor tenants in Ireland in extremely embarrassed circumstances, to whom it was necessary that some relief should be given if they were not to lose their holdings. Does the noble Lord mean to contend for one moment that to offer relief to those tenants to save them from eviction was the same thing as to use compulsion for the purpose of imposing on a landlord, and of compelling him to take back on his land a body of tenants who have joined in a conspiracy which has been denounced as immoral by the Church and stigmatised as illegal by the highest legal authority? The case is entirely different. The House has, it seems to me, to consider, first, what are the dimensions of the emergency with which we have to deal; and, secondly, whether the proposals of the Government are really effectual to deal successfully with that emergency. Attention has already been called by more than one speaker to the apparent discrepancies between the number of tenants to whom it is expected that this Bill will give relief. The total number of tenants to whom the Bill applies is unquestionably very large indeed. There is no doubt about that, because the Government have found themselves compelled to re-christen their Bill, and its present scope is much wider than anyone originally supposed. I will, however, take the number of tenants at 4,000, the number given by the Representatives of Her Majesty's Government; that number represents only 1 per cent, of the 400,000 who are to be found in the whole of Ireland. It represents, too, the evictions of 15 years, during which agriculture in Ireland has undergone the severest trials to which probably it has ever been subjected. Some of the evicted men are no doubt worthy of compassion, but I venture to assert that the dimensions of the emergency have been tremendously exaggerated. The Bill is really designed, not for the relief of the larger body of evicted tenants, but for the relief of the smaller number who are connected with
  728
  the Plan of Campaign estates, number of these was stated by the Mathew Commission to be between 800 and 900. The noble Lord who introduced the Bill repudiated the idea that the measure was intended for the Plan of Campaign tenants. But can he say that but for those tenants this Bill would ever have seen the light? Many deductions must, however, be made from the total in order to find the actual number of tenants who would be relieved by the Bill, and who could not be relieved by other means. There are, in the first place, those whom the tribunal would set aside as ineligible; men whose conduct and antecedents would not entitle them to relief. Then we must deduct those whose holdings have passed into the hands of bonâ fide new tenants, whom the Bill gives no power to dispossess; and, finally, there are those who would obtain relief by private settlement. That last class has alone been estimated at 80 per cent, of the whole; and therefore, after these deductions have been made, the total is made so infinitesimally small as to be altogether out of proportion to the magnitude and gravity of the proposals in the Bill. The difficulty is, in fact, political rather than administrative. It is felt, not on the Irish land, but in the Lobbies of the House of Commons, and this Bill has been produced, and is the price we are asked to pay in order to extricate the Government from its difficulty. It seems to me that of all the objectionable features of the Bill none is more objectionable than the proposal that Parliament shall shirk and transfer to an irresponsible tribunal a duty which properly belongs to itself. I am all for lightening the work of Parliament where it can be done by means of Commissions and Committees, but it is a very serious thing indeed to hand over to a tribunal of this kind the decision of great issues, affecting the public morality and the safety of the United Kingdom, without a single word of guidance as to how the powers conferred are to be exercised. Look at the extraordinary vagueness of the language by which the Arbitrators are directed to act, in deciding whether there is a primâ, facie case for reinstatement. They are to consider the circumstance of the district, and the circumstances under which

  729
  the determination of the tenancy took place. There is not a word to show whether those circumstances are to be agricultural, climatic, or political. And, as if that were not sufficiently vague, the Court is to consider—
  "If there is not some other cause appearing to them sufficient to justify the reinstatement of the tenant."
  I honestly believe that there never has been a case of reference to a tribunal in language so dangerously vague. Again, supposing the Arbitrators came to the conclusion that a primâ facie case had been made out, the parties are to be allowed to appear and to show that there has been unreasonableness on one side or the other. What does the inquiry into the "reasonableness" of the parties mean? It means that the whole of the history of these intricate cases is to be ripped up by the tribunal, the antecedents of both landlord and tenant are to be inquired into, the management of the estate is to be scrutinised, and the whole of the negotiations between landlord and tenant to be investigated. If it does not do all this, the tribunal will scamp its work and perform it in an unsatisfactory and perfunctory manner. And then, when the facts have been ascertained, what is the criterion of reasonableness to be? Different people will clearly take entirely different views; and the test applied by the tribunal will be a purely political test wholly without regard to the intrinsic merits of the ease. One most important hint was given by the Chief Secretary when he announced that in all probability the cases would be dealt with in groups; and we must also note that indiscreet supporters of the Government have intimated that those tenants who have been able to pay their rents but who had refused are, on the whole, objects of admiration. If that is true, what will be the result? It follows that the tribunal will not go fully into the cases. They will be dealt with in wholesale fashion. The dupes and the knaves, the solvent and the insolvent, the thrifty and the ne'er-do-weels, will all have the same undiscriminating treatment meted out to them. But if, on the other hand, proper discrimination is exercised, then many of the applicants must be disappointed, and so that which is intended as a settlement will only bring vexation and dis-
  730
  appointment. If the tribunal does its duty the insolvent and broken-down tenants must be excluded. Noble Lords sometimes speak as if bad and improvident farmers are never to be found in Ireland, but only in other parts of the United Kingdom; but that is not the case, and I think I am warranted in saying that that class is likely to form a large proportion of the tenants who have refused to pay their rents. The Plan of Campaign has had an irresistible attraction for that class of tenant. It gave them au opportunity of extricating themselves and refusing to fulfil their obligations. Persons of this sort will, therefore, be numerously represented among the applicants. Under the Bill they are to get £50 for the repair of buildings; but there is no grant for restocking the land, though such a grant to be secured by the rates was recommended by the Mathew Commission. That proposal, however, was one which the Government had no taste for. The consequence will be that we shall under the Bill have an ill-starred union of broken-down tenants and derelict farms. The condition of these is forcibly described in the Report of the Mathew Commission. The present condition of the farms, that Report states, is deplorable. The land has gone to waste, fields which, when cultivated, were thoroughly productive are now covered with furze and weeds, while tracts reclaimed by the industrious tenant from bog or mountain are returning to their original condition. That is the kind of holding to which these men will be restored if this tribunal comes into existence, and is lax in its interpretation of its duties. But if the tribunal is strict and conscientious, these men will get no relief, and the sore will remain unhealed. I see no escape from the dilemma. Then there is another class which will be left out in the cold, those who have seen their farms occupied by, some bought by, bonâ fide new tenants—commonly called "planters." These men, I venture to say, deserve all the countenance and protection which Parliament can give them. They are men who have shown that they possess that quality of self-reliance which is too often absent in the Irish peasant, and it is altogether an exaggeration to describe them as they are frequently described, as merely men of

  731
  straw. I have some personal knowledge of these cases, of which a considerable Dumber is to be found on an estate which has gained a certain amount of notoriety in connection with this dispute, and I am able to tell your Lordships that the planter tenants on that estate are far from being mere men of straw. They are men who are firmly established upon their holdings, who are thriving upon them, who have paid their rents—rents about equal to those which their predecessors refused to pay—and met their obligations with punctuality, and who are by no means men who are likely to readily abandon the farms which they now possess. The strongest proof of their bonâ fides is, I think, to be found in the fact that most of them have purchased their farms, for before they were allowed to do that their cases were inquired into by the Land Commission, who satisfied themselves that each applicant was a fit subject to purchase, and that he had punctually paid his rates and taxes before he was admitted to purchase. Now, my Lords, what I wish to impress on this House is that in the case of the tenants whose farms have been occupied by planters of this description the Bill can give no relief; their holdings are gone, and are not likely to be restored to them. If the planter sits fast, the former tenant can have no hope of being reinstated. Then there will arise this anomaly: You will have cases where a comparatively deserving former tenant finds himself excluded because his farm is occupied by a planter, and you have other cases in which a comparatively undeserving man will be reinstated because the farm is still in his landlord's hands. That is an argument which weighs very much with me, because the tenants on the estate to which I referred just now are men to whom I confess I should be glad to see relief given were it still possible to give it. They are men, the main body of whom, at all events, certainly deserve to be classed amongst those who were duped and intimidated into the folly which has led them to lose their holdings. It would not be proper that I should detain the House with a personal matter of this kind, but I cannot help doing so, in order to make good what I have said. I should like to read a short and significant extract from the evidence before the Mathew Commission. One of the local
  732
  leaders of these tenants was the curate of Luggacurren, who was one of the witnesses examined, and this gentleman was asked—
  "When did you become curate of Luggacurren?" and he replied "I became curate in 1886."
  "Had you been in the neighbourhood before that; had you been stationed in the parish?" "No, sir."
  "Were you present at the meeting at which the tenants adopted the Plan of Campaign?" "No, sir."
  "Did you take any steps to inform yourself as to the rents?" "I did not, sir."
  And yet it was under the guidance and leadership such as this that these unfortunate men entered into a foolish and unequal contest. I confess I should have been very glad if it had been possible to open a door through which they might find relief; and in order to show that this is not an idle profession on my part, I might mention that in 1891 nine of these tenants were actually reinstated on payment of two years' rent, which is somewhere about the amount required in the Bill before you. But it is now too late for the rest to expect reinstatement, and in their cases, at all events, the Bill will not afford the relief which is expected from it. Now, we have been warned that the failure of the Bill in this respect will prevent its being accepted by the tenants of Ireland. I do not know whether your attention has been directed to a statement made recently in the other House by Mr. J. Redmond, in which he said that if the Bill applied to all classes of tenants, that fact would go a long way to assist the Chief Secretary in preserving peace in Ireland: but that if the Bill passed in a defective condition as to exclude the cases in which the former tenants had been replaced by planters, which cases, he said, "lay at the very centre of the trouble," then he thought the prospects of preserving peace would be much more grave than they would have been even if we were to go the length of evicting the new tenants. I believe that, if in your Lordships' opinion anything like a general reinstatement of the evicted tenants is a condition precedent to the restoration of peace, it would be better to have a wholesale and indiscriminate reinstatement upon liberal terms of compensation than the futile, unnecessary, and abortive attempt at discrimination

  733
  contained in the Bill as it now stands. But, my Lords, the anomalies and the injustice which will be done to individuals are nothing compared to the disastrous effects which this Bill will produce on Irish society generally. It will produce a shock to public confidence in the authority of law such as has never been paralleled. Who in Ireland will ever trust our word again if we do this thing? The landlords have seen one inroad after another made on their property. They have seen the confiscation of rights which the law had recognised—contracts broken, and judicial rents which they had believed to be sacred modified at the first provocation; and now in this case, after they have been driven by a conspiracy of the most dangerous kind into vast expense, after they have been harassed by prolonged litigation, after they have been subject to abuse and obloquy of every kind, when at last they have reconquered their own and asserted the rights which the law still left to them, they find themselves liable to be ousted at the bidding of the Irish allies of Her Majesty's Government. How often during the Debates on the Land Bill of 1881 were we told that, if our rights were curtailed, we should at least be left secure in the enjoyment of those which the law still left us? Are we not excusable if we ask whether there is, in the opinion of the Government, any point at which Irish landlords may, with a clear conscience, and with the certainty that they will not be thrown over, enforce the rights which the law of their country confers upon them? Then consider the effect of this legislation upon the honest tenants who have punctually met their obligations. The First Lord of the Admiralty knows Ireland well enough to be aware at what risk these people isolated themselves from their neighbours and met their obligations when they were ordered not to do so. He knows the risk they ran to their own lives and to the safety of their families. What will be the feeling of these men when, after having had the courage of their opinions, they see their less honest neighbours reinstated—restored in triumph to their holdings, with flags flying and drums beating, and a grant from the Irish Church surplus to enable them to rebuild their homes? Will not they ask themselves, "If ever the hour of trial comes again, will it be worth while to stand aside;
  734
  will it not be better for us to throw in our lot with the rest? Another result will follow. If this Bill passes, who will ever in Ireland dare to take an acre of evicted land again? This is a very important matter, because, as has been said here and elsewhere, eviction is, after all, in Ireland and elsewhere, the ultima ratio. I find that the other day the Leader of this House indulged in a little eviction of his own, and I have no doubt he was perfectly justified in his action. Evictions must take place, if the payment of rent is not to become optional on the tenant's part. But what this legislation means is that in future if a landlord gets rid of his tenant he will have to hold the laud himself, and that nobody else will be so foolish as to rent it. Consider, again, what the effect of such legislation will be on the dishonest section of the community: will they not understand that no conspiracy is so dark that it may not be taken part in with impunity? Will they not realise that no conduct is so extravagant but that Parliament will step in and condone it; that no game is so dangerous that you cannot play it with safety if you only play it long enough? These people will be taught that it is safe for them to plunge deeper and deeper into the morass of agitation, because in the end they may be sure that Parliament will come to the rescue and extricate them? The proverb used to run that if you make your bed you must lie on it. These people will be taught that, however they may make their beds, somebody else will have to lie on it—the landlord, or their neighbours, or the taxpayers of this country. There is another incidental result of the Bill of which I would like to say a word. What will be the effect of it on the prospect of laud purchase in Ireland? I have always been a firm believer in purchase as the solution of the Irish land difficulty. I remember that, immediately on the Report of the Bessborough Commission, I expressed publicly my belief that if dual ownership of the kind suggested were to be adopted only one solution was possible—namely, by means of purchase, which would, in effect, place the tenant in the position of being sole owner of the land. I think we ought to watch the question of purchase carefully, because, after all, it is the one solitary success

  735
  which we have achieved amidst a whole wilderness of failures. Upon the millions advanced to the tenants there is hardly a shilling of bad debt. That is because the purchasers have been selected in the most careful manner; there has, in the first place, been a process of natural selection, because the operation has been confined to those who have been thrifty and self-reliant, and who were not afraid to place themselves in the position of tenants to the State, instead of to private individuals. A further process of selection has taken place through the agency of the Land Commissioners, who have rejected all but those who were thoroughly fitted to own their farms. You have therefore among these tenants got a sort of corps d'élite of the tenantry of Ireland. But under this Bill you are going to assist a body of men which will probably contain an exceptionally large number of the most thriftless, turbulent, and unimproving class. I cannot conceive any action more likely to discredit the prospects of land purchase in Ireland than the passage of such a Bill as that upon the Table. I will summarise in half-a-dozen words my objections to the measure. I believe that the Government has from the first greatly over-estimated the extent of the administrative difficulty with which they have to deal. I believe no Bill, whether voluntary or compulsory, will remove that administrative difficulty entirely. There must be in either case a certain residuum of tenants to whom it will not afford relief, and I very much suspect that that residuum would not be any larger in the case of a voluntary measure than it would he in the case of a compulsory measure, because, while a compulsory measure would be carried out reluctantly, a voluntary measure would receive every facility from the landlords. I believe, further, that if the measure were perfect and the tribunal which was to carry it out was the incarnation of prudence, such interference would be full of danger; but to give the powers contained in the Bill to such a tribunal as that constituted under it seems to me a disastrous abrogation of the proper functions of Parliament. If, however, Her Majesty's Ministers, who are responsible, are so cowed and dismayed by the administrative difficulty that they feel themselves unequal to carrying on the government of the country without
  736
  some settlement of it, then I say we would gladly have accepted a voluntary Bill, and should have done our best to make it a success. It has been said that a single perverse landlord could make a voluntary Bill a failure, but I have shown that under the Bill as it stands a single obstinate planter tenant can make it a failure? We have been threatened with the consequences that will arise if the Bill is rejected. There is a point at which these predictions approach perilously near to suggestion, and I trust that that consideration will not be lost sight of. But if the rejection of the Bill should have the effect of leading to some recrudescence of the wickedness and folly of the last few years, I believe that the result will be less disastrous in the end than the consequences of such a surrender to the forces of disorder as that which is advocated in this Bill. Be this as it may, if trouble arises the blame will lie not with us who have disappointed these expectations, but with you who have raised them. Your Lordships' action will no doubt be misrepresented, as it has been on former occasions, but we may find some consolation in the reflection that the people of this country were beginning to understand the Irish land question better than they did. They are beginning to realise, amongst other things, that the Irish tenant farmer, instead of being the most oppressed and downtrodden of the cultivators of the soil, enjoys privileges and advantages which are not shared by any occupant of land in any part of the globe. If he neglects his opportunities and declines to avail himself of these privileges and advantages, either from weakness or contumacy, or from the guidance of bad and disloyal advisers, then to say that we ought to apply legislative compulsion for the purpose of extricating him, either at the cost of the creditor whom he has defrauded or the neighbours whom he has endeavoured to lead astray, or the taxpayers of this country, whom he has already involved in great trouble and expense, is an outrage upon common sense and a fraud upon the whole community.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid, that like no doubt a large number of the noble Members of that House, he had been a strong believer in the old adage that there was nothing

  737
  new under the sun; but for the last few hours he had been speculating whether there had ever been such a complete instance of absolute inconsistency in any former probable proposition as was instanced by the noble Earl who introduced this measure. In September last he introduced a measure which had for its object the separation of Ireland from England—he who had before been the strongest and staunchest of (Unionists. Now they saw the noble Earl introducing a measure for no other object than to benefit a body of political agitators, some of whom he had imprisoned without trial. The noble Earl had not formulated a single valid argument in favour of the measure before them; he supposed because none was possible. He could show, perhaps, on what lines the argument would be based that they sympathised a good deal with the evicted tenants, and they had to maintain themselves in office. They must conciliate the leaders of the agitation, and to do that they must reinstate them in the minds of their unfortunate dupes. It was nothing more nor less than that. Pie thought if that argument had been put forward it might have prevailed somewhat, but the argument which was put forward could not prevail at all. He could not but think that in introducing the Bill the noble Earl had not realised the magnitude of the measure he was submitting to them. In the first place, it was proposed to take £250,000 of State money, to which an Irish fund was to be added known by the name of the Paris Fund, to found what was neither more or less than a Political Fund to benefit those who were called the wounded soldiers of the Plan of Campaign, which was nothing more than one of the methods of agrarian outrage. What the noble Earl really proposed to do was to take State money for the purpose of separating England and Ireland. He maintained, on these grounds alone, that their Lordships would be absolutely inconsistent, and would falsify their action in September last in rejecting the Home Rule Bill if they did not reject this measure. The noble Lords opposite knew full well that they could not challenge the rejection in September last; and if they went to the country they would not dare to challenge them on this measure. For his own part, he objected to the Bill for many reasons. In the first place, he
  738
  objected to the main principle which advocated a repudiation of debt and of legal contract. It might be said that this measure only applied to Ireland, but he did not think for a moment that its influence would be restricted to Ireland; and if they passed a measure repudiating debt in Ireland, he believed that at no distant period an attempt would be made to apply a similar principle to England, and what would result?—the whole of the great trade interest of this country would be affected. They knew their great commercial interest was based upon the fact that contract was acknowledged, and they did not repudiate their debts; i but the Government were now inaugurating a measure which had for its purpose not only the repudiation of debt, but the legalisation of the repudiation of debt, and the reward of persons who repudiated their debts and broke their contracts. More than that, he maintained that the measure proposed by the noble Earl was a direct attack on the foundations of social order. The law was always allowed to be among all classes stronger than any individual or body of individuals; it was recognised as having been made for the whole community, and that it was no less the interest than the duty of the community to obey the law as against individuals. That was always allowed until it broke down. This WHS a measure that proved that a small body of men could break the law with impunity, and it also proved that not only might law-breakers be rewarded, but that those who had obeyed the law would suffer. He did not think it would be denied that this measure was introduced to benefit the victims of the Plan of Campaign. Of that there could be no doubt whatever, because when the present Government were in power from 1880 to 1886 they proposed no such Bill for the reinstatement of evicted tenants. He would ask them why they did not bring in a measure then? Why? Because they did not see the necessity for it; but now that pressure had been brought to bear upon them they brought in this measure. The tenantry on the estates on which the Plan of Campaign fastened were not ill-used, or rack-rented, or over-rented at all. Lord Clanricarde had often been denounced as a harsh landlord; but his estate was really very low-rented, as was

  739
  proved by the fact that very few tenants took advantage of the fair-rent clauses of the Land Act. The Luggacurren estate was another property that was certainly not over-rented, and one of the evicted tenants there admitted he could pay his rent. It was a fight of intelligence against intelligence he said, and the same statement applied with equal truth to the Smith-Barry, the Massereene, and the Ponsonby estates. The Plan of Campaign was, in fact, established on these properties not because the tenants were hardly used, but as "a political engine," to quote the words of a Nationalist Member. Having failed to benefit the unfortunate dupes who embraced the Plan of Campaign, the leaders of the Nationalist Party now sought to reinstate them, with the help of the Government, in order that they might not be discouraged from taking part in future land agitations. The money collected under the Plan of Campaign was banked in the name of the leaders of the agitation, who had no right whatever to it. The miscellaneous expenditure incurred, including travelling expenses, amounted, according to Mr. Dillon, to £17,035, and this sum had never been properly accounted for. He should be the last to make a charge against any man; but he maintained that if any public business man was asked whether £17,000 was not a large sum to be accounted for, he would say it was. Unless Mr. Dillon and the trustees of the Plan of Campaign could say how it had been spent, he maintained that the tenants who were the dupes of these men had a perfect right to put any construction they chose on the manner in which that money had been expended. Though the enforcement of the Plan of Campaign had been most vigorously and steadily carried out by Mr. Dillon and the rest of the Nationalist Party, he was glad to think that a great number of honest tenants on the Plan of Campaign estates had insisted on paying their just debts and paying what was due to their landlords under great and serious difficulties. He found, on turning to the Parnell Commission, a statement to show that. He confessed that he heard with sorrow the noble Earl (Spencer) sneer at the Irish landlords. The noble Earl should have remembered that the Irish landlords were his truest friends at a time when he was discharging arduous duties in Ireland. When he heard the noble
  740
  Earl sneering at Irish landlords because of the absolute necessity they had been under to evict, he could not refrain from calling the noble Earl's attention to a newspaper extract which stated that the noble Earl had evicted tenants at Wimbledon.
  EARL SPENCER: The noble Marquess is giving me some news I am not aware of.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Will the noble Earl contradict the remark?
  EARL SPENCER: I never heard of any eviction there; I have hardly any tenants at all at Wimbledon.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid, he would not then refer to the paper. He was aware that no better landlord than the noble Earl existed in England, but he asked that the noble Earl and his colleagues should give the same credit to Irish landlords as they did to the Prime Minister. The noble Earl stated that he disapproved the Plan of Campaign, which had been forced on the unfortunate tenants by terrorism. But the noble Earl did not denounce that organisation, though he must have been aware of the harm it caused; and other members of his Party had gone so far as to put forward extenuating circumstances in its favour. Mr. Parnell's Bill would have embraced only a tithe of the tenants who were forced into the embrace of the Plan of Campaign. Mr. Parnell's Bill dealt only with leaseholders and judicial tenants whose rents had been fixed before September, 1884. A few statistics would show the small extent to which that Bill, if carried, would have affected the Plan of Campaign estates. On those estates there were 1,800 tenants, of whom 150 were judicial and 150 leaseholders. Therefore, Mr. Parnell's Bill did not apply to 1,500 out of the 1,800 tenants on the Plan of Campaign estates. On the Luggacurren estate there were 31 tenants evicted, of whom hardly one was a judicial tenant or a leaseholder. On the Coolgreany estate there were 114 tenants —15 judicial tenants and 22 leaseholders; and therefore there were 77 tenants who were unaffected by Mr. Parnell's Bill. On the Massereene estate there were 327 tenants—90 judicial and 20 leaseholders, leaving 217 tenants who were unaffected by Mr. Parnell's Bill. On the Vande-

  741
  leur estate there were 24 tenants evicted, 12 of whom were non-judicial, and therefore 12 were unaffected by Mr. Parnell's Bill. He could quote many other instances to show that Mr. Parnell's Bill would have embraced only a tithe of the tenants who were forced into the Plan of Campaign. But that was not all. The landlords had offered better terms to the Plan of Campaign tenants than they would have got under Mr. Parnell's Bill. Under that Bill the tenants were to pay 50 per cent, of the arrears, and reserve the remainder until the rents fixed between 1881 and the 31st December, 1884, had been revised. But numbers of landlords of Plan of Campaign estates had offered to take half a year's rent in settlement of all arrears. Why had not those terms been accepted? Why was not Clause 13 of the Act of 1891 taken advantage of? Simply because the promoters of the Plan of Campaign were determined that there should be no settlement between landlord and tenant, and it was their main object to keep the evicted farms derelict, if possible. Mr. Dillon, speaking in Gal way, said—
  "We organised a system of keeping evicted farms unoccupied, and it was the greatest weapon ever placed in the hands of the Irish people. Long may it be before the Irish people forget that lesson!"
  Could their Lordships wonder now why Section 13 of the Act of 1891 had not been taken advantage of, and why all the efforts of the landlords who had done everything in their power to effect settlements had come to nothing? The reason was that the men who had declared that they held the present Government in the hollow of their hand were determined that no settlement should be arrived at; and now that the evicted tenants saw their folly, this measure was brought forward simply because the political agitators wished to reinstate themselves in the minds of their unfortunate dupes. The most important part of the measure was that referring to the new tenants. The English people would never allow the men who had exercised their absolute right to occupy vacant farms, and who had sunk in those farms their capital and industry, to be evicted. It was the fashion to speak of these tenants as bogus tenants. Mr. Shaw-Lefevre had so referred to them during a tour he
  742
  made in Ireland in aid of the abettors of the Plan of Campaign. It would have been better if the right hon. Gentleman had had the courage to repeat that statement in the House of Commons, where he could be answered. But evidently Mr. Shaw-Lefevre was one of those gentlemen who thought discretion to be the better part of valour, for the Bill went through the House of Commons without a word from him, except in the form of a correction to another speaker, as to whether or not he had been under police protection while in Ireland. He himself had taken considerable trouble to find out the position of the new tenants. He had learned from Mr. Lloyd, the agent of the Massereene estate, that the capital necessary to work the holdings of 29 new tenants on that estate was no less than £12,200; while the probable amount that the tenants would require as compensation for disturbance would be £23,300. Therefore, on the Massereene estate alone £35,000 out of the sum allotted in the Bill would be required—that was out of the £250,000 which the noble Earl in introducing the Bill said would be amply sufficient for all the requirements. Mr. Dillon had referred to the new tenants as humbugs and impostors, and declared that £200 or £300 well spent would get rid of the whole crew. He asked the noble Earl opposite if he endorsed that statement? If he did, then he should give it the flattest contradiction in his power. He had had letters from a number of new tenants on the Massereene estate, on which alone the value of the new tenant properties was £35,000. Andrew Wilson, a large tenant, wrote that his rent was £90 a year, and that he was £50 better off than 12 months ago, notwithstanding boycotting. Andrew Hodge, a small tenant, who took a farm that was in a very neglected state, consisting of 38 acres, at a rent of £30, cleared £60 last year, notwithstanding boycotting, and was spending £10 a year on permanent improvements. He was aware of another case where the new tenant would not take less than £1,000 for the goodwill. These tenants appealed to their Lordships to reject this Bill, which would cause them great disappointment and loss of property. They were not bogus tenants; they were boná fide tenants, who had worked their farms, and who

  743
  had as much right to them as he had to the coat on his hack. If the Bill passed, what would be the future position of these men? It was said that the Bill brought no compulsion to bear upon them, and that they could not be turned out of their holdings. There was talk of moral compulsion, but their Lordships knew what moral compulsion was in Ireland, and when there was a bribe held out in the shape of money to the evicted tenants, that would not make the lives of the new tenants—men who were in the possession of property they had every right to enjoy—very comfortable in that possession. There was, he thought, no doubt what the future of these men would be. They had been told by Mr. Redmond, Mr. Dillon, and Mr. O'Brien, in the House of Commons, that the land-grabber's life should not be a happy one, and if further proof wore wanted it was supplied by Father Humphreys of Tipperary, who bad said that if the evicted farms were not given up there would be bloodshed. It might be asked why he took so much interest in the future of these tenants? It was because in the autumn of 1888, when he was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, he made a speech at Belfast which he might say, without presumption, was of an important character, inasmuch as almost every organ of the Press in the United Kingdom took notice of it. In that speech he said that they were grappling with the Plan of Campaign, and that they were grappling with it successfully, because the evicted farms were being taken in large numbers. He said that the proof that the Plan of Campaign had been defeated was that these evicted farms were being so taken, and he assured the tenants who had taken evicted farms that they should receive the protection of the Government. He had made that statement deliberately, with the sanction and approval of his right hon. Friend, Mr. Balfour, who was then responsible for the government of Ireland; and having in that way pledged himself to these men that they should receive the protection of the Government, if he failed to stand by them in their hour of trouble—if he allowed a measure such as this to pass the House without objecting by vote and voice, he would be very justly denounced by these men in the same manner as the evicted tenants
  744
  were denouncing Mr. Dillon and Mr. O'Brien as the greatest traitors that ever cursed the Irish soil, for leading them into danger and then deserting them. It was because of these denunciations that Mr. Dillon and Mr. O'Brien had forced the Government to press forward this Bill. He was thankful to think, though he was an humble Member of the late Conservative Government, that that Government never repudiated those pledges; and so long as he had a voice and vote he would use them in defence of these unfortunate men, and to prevent them being offered up as sacrifices to the promoters of the late agitation in Ireland. He could promise that the Unionist Government would never desert these men. Under ordinary circumstances he would now resume his seat, in the conviction that their Lordships would reject this Bill by a large majority; but he desired to deal with a question that was not altogether relevant to the subject before the House. He did it for the reason that Irish Debates were of so rare an occurrence in the House that matters with regard to Ireland were difficult to be discussed. They might remember that some months ago he raised an Irish Debate in the House in connection with the murder of the unfortunate caretaker, Donovan. He entered at considerable length into details of that murder; he asked the Government whether they were going to take notice of the speeches to which he attributed the crime, and whether they were going to repeal the Crimes Act, which was the only Act that could deal with crimes of that description. So long as he had dealt with the details of the murder, the Prime Minister retained his seat in the House, but when he left these details and proceeded to question the policy of the Government the noble Earl rose from his seat and executed a strategical retreat by going below the Bar with a speed which could only be equalled by his own equine representative on Epsom Downs. He caught sight of the noble Earl just as he was leaving, and he asked him to come back, which the noble Earl did. He asked the question as to what the Government intended to do in the case of this murder. No answer was then given by the noble Earl, but after the lapse of five days the noble Earl proceeded to Manchester and there delivered a speech a portion of which he

  745
  did him the honour to devote to him (Lord Londonderry) on the particular subject he had raised in the House. What the noble Earl stated in Manchester was one of the most unfair and one of the most unworthy statements ever made by a Minister of the Crown. He directly stated that the Unionist Government gloated over the murder of the unfortunate man Donovan, and that it came down as rain on parched ground, and was a subject of a luscious and fruit ful character to them——
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I do not think those were the words. I think I was alluding to the noble Lord's eloquence in those terms.
  THE MAEQUESS OF LONDONDERRYwas extremely flattered by the remark of the noble Earl, but he thought he was correct in saying that the spirit of the speech of the noble Earl at Manchester was that the Unionist Party rejoiced at the opportunity of bringing homo to the Government an outrage in Ireland.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I will not now retire below the Bar, as it seems to annoy the noble Lord, and perhaps I shall cut short a digression which is against all the Rules of Order of this House, if I at once say that what I said was that the noble Marquess seized with alacrity the opportunity of discussing the murder before even an inquiry had been held into its origin.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid, that all he would say was that, as an humble Member of the Unionist Party, he repudiated that statement. The reason he brought the matter forward was because, having had official experience of Ireland at a time when crime and outrage were rife, he knew that speeches such as he referred to were the cause of such murders, and therefore he thought he would lose no time in pressing upon Her Majesty's Government the necessity of preventing those speeches. He ventured to say that when Parties changed positions in the House and when questions about Ireland were put to the Marquess of Salisbury by the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the action of the noble Marquess would be different from the action of the noble Earl. The noble Marquess would not retire to the Bar of the House; he would not lose one moment in repelling the attack. But then the noble Marquess had un-
  746
  doubted advantages over the noble Earl. Lord Salisbury was a master of debate, unrivalled, in his humble opinion, by any other Member of either House of Parliament, and he possessed great courage. In conclusion, he would only say, from his own experience, that if their Lordships rejected this Bill, as he knew they would by an overwhelming majority, their action would be endorsed by the vast majority of the electors of this country whenever Her Majesty's Government had the courage to give them the opportunity of recording their opinion.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord TWEEDMOUTH)said, he ventured to ask their Lordships' indulgence because, in the first place, he was but a recent Member of the House, and, secondly, because he stood to-night as the spokesman for a small minority of their Lordships. Some of his friends outside the House had often said to him that it must be a pleasant and enviable thing to represent in the House, and give utterance to in the House, opinions that were held by perhaps one in every 20 of their Lordships. But he could not feel any pleasure of that kind. He was bound to confess that the genus loci oppressed him; that he felt it hard to kick against the pricks; but however irksome it might be to do so, he was determined to tell their Lordships that, in his opinion, if they rejected this Bill they would be doing an act of detriment and danger to the State; that they would once more be refusing to take advantage of one of those opportunities which again and again had been presented to this House in regard to Ireland, and that the time would come when their Lordships might regret having let this opportunity pass, as they had done in other instances in the past. He had listened with regret to the speeches which had been delivered. He had thought this was a question like some which had come before them of recent years, on the principle of which they were agreed, and that the question was only as to the methods for carrying out that principle. But every speech delivered against the Bill had breathed hostility against it—root, branch, and detail. It was futile to say that the Government had shown themselves slow to offer compromise. How was compromise possible in the face of speeches such as

  747
  had been delivered to-night? If compromise was to come about over this measure, the compromise must come from the Opposition or the Liberal Unionist Bench; it was impossible, after the denunciations of this Bill, that from the Government Benches an offer of compromise could be expected. The noble Marquess who had just sat down founded his speech on assertions rather than on arguments. He had made several assertions about Lord Spencer. He had said that the noble Earl had introduced the Home Rule Bill as a measure of separation between England and Ireland; and that the present Bill was a further measure of separation. That might be the opinion of the noble Marquess, but it was not the opinion of the Government. They on the Ministerial side believed that both the Home Rule Bill and this Bill, so far from leading to separation, would conduce to the union of the two countries. The noble Marquess said the Government dared not challenge the opinion of the country either on the rejection of the Home Rule Bill or the coming rejection of this Bill. But they did dare to challenge the opinion of the country. The English people had learned what was the position of things—they had been educated on the Irish Question during the last six years, and he ventured to tell their Lordships that when the Government came to refer their Irish policy to the decision of the electors of the country that the verdict of those electors would be in favour of their policy and against the policy advocated by the noble Marquess opposite. The quotations of the noble Marquess with regard to the Plan of Campaign, and other incidents in Ireland during the last few years, proved what no one denied, that a great agitation had taken place in that country. But the agitation had to a great extent closed. He believed that even the noble Marquess would admit that; and the Government had confidence that the proposals they now submitted would do much to close that agitation for ever. The noble Marquess said that the result of the Bill would be to drive the new tenants from their farms. He found no such proposal in the Bill. On the contrary, the question whether the new tenant was to go and make room for the evicted tenant was left entirely to the new tenant to de-
  748
  cide; if the new tenant decided to remain, remain he would, for the Bill could not make him go; but if he decided to go, it awarded him compensation. Reference had been made by the noble Marquess to the new tenants on the Massereene and Luggacurren estates. The noble Marquess had quoted two estates which were favourable to his argument; but he would ask how many bonâ fide new tenants there were in Ireland outside these estates? The argument with regard to the number of tenants that would be dealt with under the Bill had, it appeared to him, gone on a vicious circle. On the one hand it was said the number was so large that it would be impossible to find money to satisfy their claims, while on the other hand it was said the number was so small that it was not worth while considering them, and that therefore the Bill was objectless. In dealing with an argument of that sort they had got to cut the vicious circle, and he ventured to say that while it was true that the Bill applied to all tenants in Ireland whose tenancies had been determined for any reason whatever between 1877 and 1894, yet the number of tenants who would come under the provisions of the Bill was not a very extensive number. He believed that the calculation of the Irish Office would probably be found to be correct, and that the number would be between 4,000 and 5,000. An immense number of the evicted tenants had been reinstated either as tenants or caretakers; and as the population of Ireland had decreased by 500,000 between 1881 and 1891, in a large number of the worse cases the men had left the country and would not come under the operation of the Bill.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Why not?
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Because they will not put in any claim.
  LORD BALFOUR: How do you know?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: They may come back.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, that a certain number might come back; but, after all, if 500,000 people left Ireland between 1881 and 1891, and a large number of them were evicted tenants, the proportion of these tenants who would return from their position in the colonies or in America would not be great. It was the fact that the number of evicted

  749
  tenants who would come under the Bill would be small, but they would be the worst cases of all, for they would be the cases from those estates — he believed they were few in number—the landlords of which had refused settlements. He did not desire to bring any charges against the Irish landlords. All he would say was that bad men would be found in every class, and it was with the cases of that fraction of Irish landlords who were irreconcilable that the Bill was intended to deal. The allegation that a large portion of these men were insolvent would not apply to the Plan of Campaign tenants, because the first condition of getting the benefit of the Plan of Campaign was the payment of the former rent, less the claimed reduction, into the bank. Therefore, those tenants, at least, could not be insolvent. It was said the Government were forced to bring in this Bill, because of the exigencies of the Lobby in the House of Commons. He met that charge with the most absolute negative. All classes seemed agreed that it was necessary to deal with the question of agrarian tenants. Men varying so much as Mr. Carson, Mr. T. W. Russell, and Mr. Courtney had agreed that the position of these tenants was one of danger, and ought to be dealt with.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not think Mr. Carson said anything like that.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, that so much did Mr. Carson say so that his letter to The Times on the subject drew a protest from Earl Grey, who wrote—
  "The object of Mr. Carson's letter is to deny that there is any ground for the idea that the Unionist Party in the House of Commons have adopted a non possumus attitude on the question of the evicted tenants in Ireland and their reinstatement, and have refused all compromise even on the basis of a purely voluntary Act. Those words clearly imply that the Party for which Mr. Carson speaks would have approved of a purely voluntary Act for the reinstatement of those tenants; and if I am not mistaken it is to be inferred that their approval would not have been withheld if the 'voluntary Act' proposed had included the provisions contained in the present Bill for granting public money in aid of the desired reinstatement."
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord said Mr. Carson admitted that it was necessary to deal with those evicted tenants. My memory inclines me to doubt very much whether Mr. Carson said that.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, that what Mr. Carson wrote to The Times was as follows:—
  "I find that notwithstanding Mr. Balfour's very specific statement to the contrary an idea prevails in many quarters that the Unionist Party in the House of Commons have adopted a non possumus attitude on the question of evicted tenants in Ireland and their reinstatement; and have refused all compromise even on the basis of a purely voluntary Act. Any such idea is absolutely without foundation, and has only gained currency from Mr. Courtney's speech."
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is not the same thing; it is not the point.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH (resuming)said, that a good deal of criticism had been directed to the position of the Arbitrators under the Bill. He always understood that one of the first necessary conditions of arbitration was that the Arbitrators should have a perfectly free hand—that they should be entirely unfettered. Now, he contended that if the action of the Arbitrators under this Bill was to be fettered by strict Rules an arbitration would thereby be instituted which, in its very essence, would be likely to fail. He should like to know whether the Prime Minister could have brought about a settlement between masters and men in the case of the coal strike; or the Home Secretary in the case of the coal strike if he had been fettered by conditions?
  LORD ASHBOURNE: The noble Lord spoke about bringing the parties together. It is not suggested from the beginning to the end of the Bill.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, the procedure under the Bill was this: the tenant in the first place stated his case; the Arbitrators had then to decide whether the tenant had made out a bonâ fide case; if they thought so the landlord was asked whether or not he objected to the reinstatement, and if he objected to show cause. The whole question was then gone into; and the Arbitrators were left unfetterred in their action. He believed that if they laid down Rules for the Arbitrators the Bill would be a failure. The noble Duke who spoke early in the Debate—the Duke of Argyll—had asked why the Government had chosen the limit of the year 1879 in the Bill. They had done so for exactly the same reason that the Conservative Government chose

  751
  1879 in relation to Clause 13 of the Bill of 1891, because that year was an exceptionally bad one in Ireland, when evictions were unusually numerous. He would not go into the long disquisition of the noble Duke on the Land Act of 1881—a disquisition which was introduced in order to give the noble Duke the opportunity of talking about himself, and not on account of any particular relation it bore to the Bill before the House. But the noble Duke said the effect of the Act of 1881 had been to stop any expenditure of rental on the improvement of land. There might be exceptions; but the noble Duke must know that the custom in Ireland was that the whole of the improvements should be carried out by the tenant, and that the landlord should spend no money on them at all.
  VISCOUNT POWERSCOURTsaid, he entirely denied the statement of the noble Lord that the landlords never spend money on their estates. They had spent large sums, and he would not listen to such accusations against Irish landlords.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHreplied that he stated that there were exceptions, but the general rule with Irish landlords was that they did not spend money on improvements.
  VISCOUNT POWERSCOURT: It is not.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, that if the noble Lord said that it was the general rule for Irish landlords to spend money on the improvement of their land he propounded an altogether new doctrine, and one which would not find acceptance either in that House or with the public outside. The Duke of Argyll also stated that this Bill superseded and did away with the Act of 1881 without putting anything in its place. But the Bill did not touch the Act of 1881 at all; it ran on totally different lines; it dealt with special cases which had arisen since the Act of 1881, and that Act was in no way superseded by the Bill. The two main arguments adduced in support of the demand that their Lordships should reject this Bill was, in the first place, that the House of Commons had not discussed the measure and had been forcibly prevented from discussing it; in the second place, the Bill was a compulsory one. The first argument, he thought, was neither serious nor sincere, for the whole time
  752
  devoted to the consideration of the Bill in the House of Commons amounted to 59 hours and 50 minutes, or nine Parliamentary days, a considerably longer period than their Lordships were wont to devote to any Bill, however important. But they might have discussed it at much greater length in the House of Commons. For what happened? No proposal to closure the Bill was brought forward till two days had been spent in Committee on the first two lines of the first clause. It was the Opposition which made it perfectly clear that it would be impossible to get the Bill through the other House at all without some such measures as were adopted, and he thought these measures, so far from being on the side of severity, were on the side of leniency. What were those measures? It was proposed by the Government to give five more days to the Committee stage, and one day for the Report stage before the Bill should be closured. But Members of the Opposition preferred to throw up the sponge and to say they would not play. The Government knew there was nothing which the Opposition desired so much in the House of Commons as that the closure should be applied, and that it should be applied in its sharpest and quickest manner. In the first place, men desired to go to the country, to their watering places, to their yachts, and to their grouse moors, and they also wished for the closure in order to give their Lordships the best reason for rejecting this Bill. To say then that a fair opportunity was not given to discuss this Bill in the House of Commons was to say the thing which was not true, a point he was prepared to discuss at any meeting in the country. The second main argument against the Bill was the question of compulsion. He thought a great deal more talk had been made than was necessary with regard to the small measure of compulsion in this Bill. It was not a new principle; it appeared in the Land Acts of 1870, 1881, and 1887. The principle was perhaps adapted to the greatest extent of all in the Act of 1887—passed by a Conservative Government—which absolutely interfered compulsorily with the judicial rents fixed under the Act of 1881. It was said that it was a very hard thing for a landlord to be forced under this Bill to accept a tenant he did not wish to receive. But

  753
  the Irish landlord had to do it already under the Act of 1881. Under the free sale clause of that Act any person who bought the tenant-right of a farm must be received by the landlord whether lie liked it or not. [Cries of "No!"] Perhaps e had put it in rather too strong a manner. At any rate, the practical effect of the free sale clause of the Act of 1881 asked that a landlord very often had to receive a tenant whom he would rather not receive. It was true that in this case a landlord would be bound to receive back a tenant he had evicted, and whom, perhaps, he did not want to receive back. But the Bill did not do that without giving the landlord any alternative. It should be borne in mind that a landlord to whom application was made under this Bill to reinstate a tenant might require the tenant to purchase his holding. That right appeared to him to constitute a considerable mitigation of the alleged hardship of compulsory reinstatement. He regretted very much the line which was taken in this House with regard to the Bill. He believed their Lordships' House was not the best of tribunals for dealing with such a question as this. They were, in the first place, a House of landlords. A tribunal of one class only, however impartial it desired to be, must almost necessarily be affected by the interest of the particular class to which it belonged. He did not think there was any offence to anybody in saying that was his view. He believed this House had a still further disqualification in dealing with this question. In their Lordships' House they were free from feeling any of the influences which were brought to bear on the Members of the other House by the general mass of the electors. It might be for good, or it might be for evil, but after all, the Government of the country was in the bauds of the electors, who had been successively enfranchised, and he thought it was a dangerous thing for a body of men to decide questions regarding Ireland who were not in constant daily contact with the mass of the electors of the country. It might be said that he was taking a Whip's view, which was supposed to be the view of a man who cared nothing for the means he employed, but thought only of the end. That might have been the case with a former generation, but it was not so now. In the old
  754
  days Whips had great patronage, and had great sums of money, including the £10,000 for secret service, at their command. In these days the Whips had no patronage to bestow, and with regard to money, the other side might have largo sums of money at their command, but he could answer for it that the Liberal Whips had none. In his opinion, no man could successfully fulfil the duties of the position which he had once the honour to fulfil in the other House, unless he realised the true inwardness of the subjects to be dealt with by his Party from time to time. He had enjoyed very exceptional and unusual opportunities, therefore, for testing the opinion of the country, not only through Members of Parliament, but through the opinions of all conditions of men throughout the country; and he deliberately told their Lordships that, in his judgment, in rejecting this Bill they were making a great mistake, and a mistake which they would live to rue.
  Moved, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
  Motion agreed to; further Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

  VALUATION OF LANDS (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.] (No. 163.)
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  NAUTICAL ASSESSORS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 193.)
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 194.)
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
TOWN IMPROVEMENTS (BETTERMENT)
Messages from the Commons for Reports, &c. of Select Committees: Ordered to be communicated accordingly.
MARKING OF FOREIGN AND COLONIAL PRODUCE.
Messages from the Commons for Reports, &c. of Select Committees: Ordered to be communicated accordingly.
CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVI- SIONAL ORDER (No. 11) (LAGAN, &C., CANALS) BILL.—(No. 197.)

  CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVI- SIONAL ORDER (No. 4) (BIRMINGHAM CANAL) BILL.—(No. 198.)
  Moved That the Order made on the 19th day of March last—
  "That no Bill brought from the House of Commons confirming any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 26th day of June next"
  be dispensed with, and that the Bills be read 2a: agreed to; Bills read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVI- SIONAL ORDER (No. 1) (CANALS OF THE GREAT NORTHERN AND CER- TAIN OTHER RAILWAY COMPANIES) BILL.—(No. 184.)
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVI- SIONAL ORDER (No. 3) (ABERDARE &C, CANALS) BILL.—(No. 186.)
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVI- SIONAL ORDER (No. 5) (REGENT'S CANAL) BILL.—(No. 187.)
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVI- SIONAL ORDER (No. 7) (RIVER ANCHOLME, &c.) BILL.—(No. 188.)
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVI- SIONAL ORDER (No. 8) (RIVER CAM, &c.) BILL.—(No. 189.)
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVI- SIONAL ORDER (No. 9) (CANALS OF CALEDONIAN AND NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY COMPANIES) BILL. (No. 190.)
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
CANAL RATES, TOLLS, AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 11) (GRAND CANAL, &c.) BILL. (No. 191.)
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
PRIZE COURTS BILL [H.L.]—(No. 56.)
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments; Commons Amendments considered (on Motion), and agreed to.
EQUALISATION OF RATES (LONDON) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next: (The Lord President [E. Rosebery]. (No. 207.)
BUILDING SOCIETIES (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next: (The Lord Chancellor). (No. 208.)
HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (BORROWING POWERS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next: (The Lord Hawkes-bury). (No. 209.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a Tomorrow (The Lord Privy Seal [L. Tweedmouth.]) (No. 210.)
MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next: (The Lord Chancellor). (No. 204.)
CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVI- SIONAL ORDER (No. 6) (RIVER LEE, &C.) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 211.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Ordered that the Evening Sitting of the House To-morrow do commence at half-past Four o'clock.
House adjourned at five minutes past Twelve o'clock a.m., to half-past Ten o'clock a.m.