Sitting of 14 August 1894

QUESTIONS.

  THAMES AND SEVERN CANAL.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Thames and Severn Canal is still so much out of repair as to be unfit for navigation; and whether any, and, if
  980
  any, what steps have been taken by the Board of Trade, in accordance with the assurances given by the ex-President of the Board of Trade on 10th January, 1894, to compel the Thames and Severn Canal Company or the Great Western Railway Company to render the canal fit for navigation?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BEYCE,): Yes, Sir; the Board of Trade are aware that the greater portion of the canal remains in a condition which renders it practically unfit for navigation. The Board have for months been in active communication with the Canal Company and they hoped that the negotiations which have been in progress between the proprietors of the canal and an association of representatives of neighbouring allied navigations would ere this have been brought to a satisfactory issue. I understand that in June a proposal was made by the proprietors to the allied navigations to hand over the canal to them on certain terms, and, from a letter written by the secretary to the association on the 3rd of this month I gather that the allied navigations are employing an engineer to make a report and that they propose finally to consider the proprietors proposals at a meeting in September. The Board of Trade will do everything in their power to facilitate an arrangement, but it is, to say the least, extremely doubtful whether the Board have any compulsory powers in the matter.
  MR. BARTLEY: Is it not a fact that the Great Western Railway Company are practically the owners of the canal; have they not bought up the greater part of the shares without the sanction of Parliament; and have they not let the canal get into a very disreputable condition?
  MR. BRYCE: I understand that the Great Western Railway have what is called a controlling influence; but what the number of proprietors who remain independently of the Railway Company is at present I am unable to say.
  MR. BYRNMOR JONES: Has not the Board of Trade the power to declare the canal derelict?
  MR. BRYCE: I doubt that. There seems to be great doubt whether Section 17 of the Act of 1873 applies to this case, because it can hardly be said that

  981
  the Great Western Railway are proprietors of the canal.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN THE EDENDERRY UNION.
  MR. KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Edenderry Board of Guardians, at the suggestion of the Local Government Board, did on the 21st of July last reconsider their previous decision (to deprive the labourer M'Namara, Balrennet, of the cottage which was built on his representation), and by a majority passed a resolution restoring M'Namara; and that on the 4th of August, on the motion of Mr. Tyrell, J.P., the resolution of the 21st of July was rescinded, leaving the case as it stood previously; and will the Local Government Board, in view of their own statement that the course adopted by the Edenderry Board of Guardians was contrary to the spirit and intention of the Labourers Acts, again make an effort to have the Guardians reconsider this case, or will the Local Government Board, in view of the Guardians resolution of the 21st of July, now take the decision into their own hands?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): The facts are correctly stated in the first paragraph. The Guardians' resolution of the 21st of July giving the house to M'Namara was passed by a majority of 11 to eight, and the resolution of the 4th of August which rescinded that of the 21st of July after due notice, was passed by 14 to seven. The Local Government Board have addressed the Guardians several times on the subject, and pointed out that the course adopted by them was contrary to the spirit and intention of the Labourers Act. The Guardians, however, still adhere to their determination not to give the cottage to M'Namara, and I may add that so far as the Local Government Board are aware the majority of Guardians, by whom the rescinding resolution of the 4th instant was passed, was made up of eight elected and six ex officio Guardians. As the law at present stands, the selection of occupants for cottages under the Labourers Acts entirely rests with the Guardians, and the Board have no power to take the selection of a tenant
  982
  for the cottage in question into their own hands.
  MR. KENNEDY: As this is a case of great hardship and injustice will the Irish Local Government Board make a further effort to induce the Guardians to reconsider their decision?
  MR. J. MORLEY: As I have already explained, the Board have no power to take the selection of a tenant into their own hands.
  MR. KENNEDY: But cannot the right hon. Gentleman ask the Board to reconsider the decision come to?
  MR. J. MORLEY: My information is that the Local Government Board do not think that even the presence of one of their Inspectors at the next meeting of the Guardians would have any effect in inducing them to reconsider their decision. I believe the case is not a very strong one on all its merits.

BURIAL BOARD FEES.
MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he is aware that the Ulverston Burial Board and the Burial Board of Toddington, Bedfordshire, exact in the unconsecrated parts of their cemeteries the same fees as are payable to the parochial incumbents in the consecrated portions; (2) whether their tables of fees and charges have received the sanction of the Home Office; (3) whether steps will be taken to obtain the abandonment of these charges; (4) whether any, and what, action has been taken with regard to a similar table of fees adopted by the Hounslow Burial Board; and (5) whether, in view of these and other cases of the like kind, he will call the attention of Burial Boards to the provisions of the law in regard to such charges, and require an alteration of all tables of fees and charges which are not in conformity therewith?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): (1) The tables of both Burial Boards contain the fees mentioned in the question, but in the case of Ulverston the clerk informs me that in respect of burials in unconsecrated ground they are not "exacted," but that it is carefully explained that they are voluntary payments. (2) The Toddington Table has not been sanctioned by

983
the Home Officer, nor has the Ulverston Table so far as regards the fees mentioned in the question. (3) I will communicate at once with both Burial Boards with a view to the amendment of the tables. The Clerk to the Ulverston Board assures me that his Board will comply with the law at once. (4) I communicated with the Hounslow Burial Board and obtained an amendment of the table which makes it quite clear that the fees to incumbents and "officiating ministers" are payable only when the burial is in consecrated ground. (5) If my attention is called to any other case where the tables of fees are not in accordance with the law, I will ask the Burial Boards to alter them. I have no power to compel them to do so, but I have no doubt they will be ready to comply with the law when their attention is called to its provisions.

MASTER OF DOCKYARD TUGS.
ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether their Lordships will consider the claim of the masters of sea-going dockyard lugs to have their pensions calculated upon the basis of their annual earnings rather than, as at present, upon their scale of day pay of 5s., in view of the great responsibilities cast upon them as pilots of Her Majesty's ships entering and leaving harbour, and bearing in mind that their Lordships have recently accepted the principle in dealing with the pensions of Admiralty coopers?
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,): The pension of these men are governed by an Order in Council under which it has been held that pilotage allowances cannot be taken into account.
ADMIRAL FIELD: Will their Lordships consider the advisability of altering the order in the interests of justice?
MR. E. ROBERTSON: I cannot make any promise to that effect.

RATLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education -whether he is aware that the public elementary school at Ratley, in Warwickshire, has been closed since the 29th of June, and that no intimation has been
984
given to the inhabitants that it will be re-opened; whether communications from Ratley were made to the Department on the 4th and 16th of July and on the 1st of August, and a reply was sent on the 25th of July saying that a letter had been written to the managers of the school, but that no answer had been received from them; whether any answer has yet been received from the managers; and, if so, to what effect; and whether any and what steps will be taken by the Department to ensure that there shall be proper elementary education at Ratley?
THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,): The Department were informed by the managers of this school on the 24th of July that the ordinary summer holidays were being given this year in July and the beginning of August instead of August and the beginning of September as previously, and that the school would be re-opened in the second week in August. This letter was received just after the letter from the Department, mentioned in the question, had been put forward. I do not know whether the school has been re-opened yet, but I will inquire. There is nothing irregular in the case so far as appears.

WAGES ON GOVERNMENT FARMS.
MR. EVERETT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that the men employed on the Park Farm, Shimpling, Suffolk, belonging to the Crown (Woods and Forest Department), which farm is in hand, have applied to have their wages raised from 10s. a week, their present pay; whether they have been told that their wages will be raised when other fanners raise theirs; and whether the Government will in this case, as at Woolwich and other places, take the initiative, and pay at least 12s. a week?
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): The Park Farm at Shimpling belongs to the Crown, and is in hand. The better class of labourers employed upon the Farm are paid more than 10s. a week, but there are ordinary labourers receiving 10s. The Commissioner of Woods informs me that no application has been made by the men to have their wages

985
raised, and that the rates actually paid are those prevalent in the neighbourhood.

ATTACKS ON IRISH HARVESTERS IN ENGLAND.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the result of his further inquiry into the attack by a number of roughs upon some Irish harvesters near the Red Lion, Potter's Bar, on the 21st of July; whether he is now aware that the hut in the field in which these Irish haymakers were asleep when arrested at 2 o'clock on the following Sunday morning was their usual sleeping place assigned to them by their employer, and that they were not in the hut for the purpose of concealment from the police; whether, having regard to the statement made by the police that these Irishmen were not in bed when arrested, but lying on hay on the floor, he is aware that it is not the practice of English farmers who engage Irishmen for haymaking to provide them with spring mattresses or feather beds, but with a supply of hay or straw on which to sleep; whether any charge has yet been made against the Englishmen who attacked these Irish harvesters; whether it is proposed to act upon the suggestion of the Chairman of the Court, and take evidence of the landlord of the Red Lion; and whether the fine and costs imposed upon Patrick Shield, who was not present during the disturbance, but unwell in the hut in the field, will be remitted?
MR. ASQUITH: I have had a full inquiry made into this matter. It is true that the hut in which one of the men was arrested was their usual sleeping place. I regret that the information supplied to me and given by me to the House the other day upon this point was not more explicit, but it was not intended to suggest that the man was in the hut for the purpose of concealing himself from the police. As to the 4th and 5th paragraphs have had a statement taken from Mr. Stallabran, the landlord of the Red Lion, and all the facts have been carefully investigated. Mr. Stallabran states as follows:—
"The house was closed some few minutes before o'clock on Saturday, 21st July, and everyone went out peaceably. No disturbance whatever
986
took place in my house during the evening, and no cause for any disturbance arose. I am quite ready to go before any Magistrate, but I do not think I could throw any light on the subject, as the disturbance took place after my house was closed and I was not present. Some few minutes after 11 o'clock I heard a disturbance going on about 50 yards from my house in the direction of Mr. Read's farm. I went out of my private entrance and saw police disperse the crowd, who went away in various directions; some quarter of an hour afterwards I heard shouting some distance off, but I did not go down, but came indoors and went to bed, and saw no more of the affair. I do not know any of the men, and cannot say whether the man Patrick Shields was in my house on the night in question or not."
There is no satisfactory evidence to show who was responsible for the original disturbance, and no proceedings could be taken in respect of it with any prospect of success. The men in question were arrested for stoning and attacking the police. It does not appear to be true that Shields was unwell. His employer, Mr. Reid, states that he was not ill on the day in question, but at his work as usual. He was identified as being present, and taking part in the attack on the police, and I cannot upon the materials before me interfere with the conclusion come to by the Magistrates. I will take this opportunity of answering the supplemental question put the other day by the how and learned Member for North Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy) with regard to an attack on some Irish labourers in Lancashire. I have received a full Report from the Lancashire police on the subject, and it appears that on the 24th of June a very serious and most disgraceful attack was made upon a body of Irishmen in a house upon a farm at Altcar. The assailants set fire to the house in which the men were at the time, and assaulted with pitchforks, heavy sticks and bars of iron every Irishman they could find. I am glad to say that some five or six of the ringleaders were identified and taken into custody and indicted at the Assizes, where they pleaded guilty. They have since been sentenced, one to five years' penal servitude; another to three years; another to 15 months, another to 12 months, and another to six mouths, and that, I think, is a satisfactory proof that English Juries and English Judges are quite prepared to enforce the law impartially and stringently wherever a breach of it takes

987
place, no matter whom the lawbreakers may be.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any effort will be made to punish the Englishmen who attacked the Irishmen at Potter's Bar?
MR. ASQUITH: What I said was that there was no satisfactory evidence to show how the disturbance began or who were the aggressors or who the attacked party. The four men punished were punished not for taking part in the disturbance, but because that afterwards when the police came to disperse the crowd they attacked and stoned the police.
MR. WEIR: Were they punished simply because they were Irishmen? If they had been Englishmen would they not have escaped?
MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir.
MR. WEIRasked whether the Justices were justified in sending one of the men to gaol for 21 days, seeing that the police intimated that the man was found in his usual sleeping place in the hut in the field.
MR. ASQUITH: My hon. Friend is not quite accurate. The man was sentenced to 21 days for threatening the police with a knife. I have made a most careful investigation into the matter, and I cannot discover that there was any question of Englishmen or Irishmen in the matter. If there had been, no censure would be too great. The man arrested in the hut was identified, on evidence which the Magistrates thought satisfactory, of having been one of those who attacked the police.
MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he considers the attempt, partially successful, to roast a whole number of Irishmen in some cabin has been fairly dealt with by the sentences he has read out?
MR. ASQUITH: It seems to me that the sentences are adequate.
MR. T. M. HEALY: If they had been Irishmen they would have been dealt with very differently.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

THE MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF MILITAEY CANDIDATES.
MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will arrange that candidates for commissions in the Army may
988
if they wish it, by paying a special fee to cover the cost, be officially examined as to their medical fitness before undergoing the competition?
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOODALL,)(who replied) said: A very full statement of the physical conditions required of candidates for the Army has been prepared, and may be obtained by candidates on application to the War Office. With that statement before him, any qualified surgeon will be able to inform candidates whether they are likely to pass the medical examination. It is therefore unnecessary, even if it were practicable, to authorise any official medical examination of candidates before the examination which follows successful competition for commissions.
MR. BARTLEY: Is it not a fact that there is a considerable number of cases in which young men who have passed the examination have been subsequently excluded in consequence of physical unfitness? Would it not be more considerate to the candidates to allow them to be examined before they go in for training, so as to enable them to avoid a disaster which in some cases means a loss of many years to them.
MR. WOODALL: The hon. Member is aware that the matter had been recently under discussion in that House, and I am unable to add anything to the answer I have given.

ST. JAMES'S SCHOOL, BERMONDSEY.
MR.MACDONA: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will explain upon what grounds the Education Department have demanded that expensive alterations shall be made in the schools of St. James, Bermondsey, which contain about 550 children in average attendance, and have had most excellent Reports, every year; and whether, in consideration of the poorness of the neighbourhood, and the many burdens and high rate of taxation in the district, he will make his orders for alterations as light as possible, and reconsider the heavy demand he has recently made upon the slender resources of so poor a neighbourhood?
MR. ACLAND: Since 1889 there have been repeated references in the Reports of the school to the need of

989
better class-room accommodation, in order to relieve overcrowding and to allow a better organisation of the school. The managers have been asked to enlarge the class-rooms as a condition of their continued recognition, and to partition the main room; and they appear ready to do so, and are in correspondence with the Department as to the plans. No other requirement has been made by the Department; but it appears that certain alterations to the drainage and offices have been ordered by the Vestry as Sanitary Authority for the district.
MR. MACDONA: Seeing that this is a very poor district, and it will be difficult to raise the money, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that failure to do so will involve the handing over of the school to the School Board, and thereby cast extra burdens on the ratepayers?
MR. ACLAND: I am afraid that that is the case. In Loudon, as elsewhere, schools have to fill up vacancies, and if a school cannot be supported voluntarily the burden must fall on the rates.

VICTORIA VICTUALLING YARD, DEPTFORD.
MR. MACDONA: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that there are two men who have been for over 30 years employed at the Victoria Victualling Yard, Deptford, upon permanent day work, and two for over 20 years, and five at an average of 10 years; and whether he will take this fact into consideration and reinstate them from their present pay of 26s. a week to 30s. a week, which they have heretofore been earning until the recent reduction to 26s. a week?
MR. E. ROBERTSON: I have already stated, in an answer to the hon. Member for Deptford on the 9th instant, that there has been no reduction of wages. The 30s. rate was paid for a short time by mistake, and the authorized rate of 26s. has been resumed.
MR. MACDONA: I am perfectly aware that a similar question has been put; but the answer to that given last week was that no permanent men were employed.
MR. E. ROBERTSON: The meaning being that that particular rating had been abolished.
MR. MACDONA: My question referred exclusively to permanent coopers.

FISHERY CRUISERS ROUND THE ISLAND OF LEWIS.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that during the last few days two trawlers have been working night and day at Loch Roag and along the coast of the Island of Lewis, and that they have completely ruined Loch Roag as a fishing place for the local fishermen; if he will state why there is no officer of fisheries at the present time at Stornoway; whether the new cruiser has visited Loch Roag; if so, when; and whether immediate steps will be taken to deal with illegal trawling around the Island of Lewis?
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. Trevelyan, Glasgow, Bridgeton): I am informed by the Fishery Board that the Commander of the fishery cruiser Vigilant returned to Oban on Saturday last after having visited during the week most of the places likely to be frequented by beam trawlers off the West Coast and the islands as far north as Broad Bay and the Butt of Lews, and reported that no trawlers were seen in or near the protected waters. No complaints were received, except at Stornoway, and these were of a vague nature, and founded on hearsay or surmise that lights seen during night were those of a trawler. The reason why there is at present no fishery officers stationed at Stornoway is that during the progress of the great summer herring fishing on the East Coast, and in Orkney and Shetland, it is necessary for branding purposes to transfer all the available West Coast officers to other districts. The new cruiser has not yet visited Loch Roag, but if evidence were forthcoming that trawlers were really working there, she could be sent to the neighbourhood.
MR. WEIRasked if it was not a fact that the new cruiser had never visited Loch Roag?
SIR G. TREVELYAN: My hon. Friend must see that one could pick out many places which the cruiser had not visited. It is impossible for it to be in different places at the same time. It is doing very good work, and it goes where it is most required.
MR. WEIR: Is it not a fact that a cruiser intended for the protection of the fisheries off the Island of Lewis is hundreds of miles from the coast of the island?
[No answer was given.]

ALDERSHOT WATEE SUPPLY.
MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the condition of the water supply at Aldershot; whether he is aware that the boys of the Public School Battalion were warned not to drink the water, as it was so bad that even the filters were insufficient and out of order; and whether he will take steps to secure at once an ample supply of potable water?
MR. WOODALL(who replied) said: There is an ample supply of excellent potable water for the troops at Aldershot from the Bourley reservoirs, and this water was supplied to the boys of the Public School Battalion by means of a standpipe fixed to the main. Notices are put on certain pumps that the water from these wells is to be used for washing purposes only.
MR. BARTLEY: Is it not a fact that the boys were cautioned not to drink the water during the recent movements of the Public School Battalion?
MR. WOODALL: The caution had reference to a particular kind of water, which was kept for sanitary and not for drinking purposes.

THE MERCANTILE MARINE FUND.
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH (Bristol, W.): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has appointed a Departmental Committee to inquire into the condition of the Mercantile Marine Fund, and the mode of levying the Light Dues; whether he will state the Order of Reference to such Committee, and the names of the members; and whether any proposal to relieve the shipping interest of Light Dues at the cost of the Exchequer will be excluded from the inquiry of the Committee?
MR. BRYCE: Yes, Sir; I have appointed au Inter-Departmental Committee with the following Reference:—
"To inquire into the present financial condition of the Mercantile Marine Fund, the sources of its revenue, and the mode in which that revenue is applied; as also into the principles
992
upon which Light Dues are, at present, levied, having regard to their incidence upon different classes of ships and voyages."
And
"To advise what (if any) changes are desirable for increasing the revenue of the Mercantile Marine Fund, for relieving it from any of the existing charges, and for adjusting such inequalities in the incidence of the Light Dues as may be found to exist."
The Committee will consist of—The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin (Chairman), Lord Welby, Lord Brassey, Sir Robert Hamilton, the hon. Members for the South Division of Bristol and the St. Rollox Division of Glasgow, one of the Secretaries or Assistant Secretaries of the Board of Trade, Mr. Ryder, of the Treasury, Captain Vyvyan, of the Trinity House, Mr. Fenwick Fenwick, President of the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom, and Mr. John Glover.

FARNHAM TITHE DISPUTE.
MR. JEFFREYS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that in the case of "Simmonds v. Heath," begun 18 mouths ago in the Farnham County Court over a disputed tithe claim for £3 10s., the defendant has secured three Judgments in his favour; that the plaintiff as well as defendant was content with the Judgments of the Court of Appeal given in November, 1893; on what grounds has the Treasury since intervened and given notice to the defendant that they will take up the case and appeal to the House of Lords, and that the defendant must lodge his case there by 13th September next; whether there is any precedent for the Treasury thus intervening in private litigation for their own purposes, without agreeing to indemnify both sides against the costs of the appeal; whether the Treasury will consider the consequence of their action upon the defendant, who is a small dairyman and grocer, and quite unable to pay for the preparation of his case before the House of Lords; and whether the Treasury will give the necessary indemnity for costs, in order that the defendant may have full justice done at the hearing of his case?
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The Treasury has intervened in this case in order to obtain an authoritative judicial decision upon a question of considerable impor-

993
tance in the administration of extraordinary Tithe Redemption 1886 by the Board of Agriculture. The Treasury will be prepared to relieve both parties to the appeal of the amount of their necessary costs.

ASHTON-UNDER-LYME SEWAGE SCHEME.
MR. SIDEBOTHAM: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether lie has considered the Petition against the Ashton-under-Lyme Sewage Scheme presented to him by the inhabitants of Dukinfield; and whether he has arrived at any decision in the matter; and, if not, whether he can state when he will be in a position to settle this question, which is causing such uneasiness to the ratepayers of Dukinfield?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. SHAW-LEFEVRE,): I have had under consideration the representations made to the Local Government Board with reference to the Ashton-under-Lyme sewerage scheme, and my decision will be communicated to the authorities within a few days.

WATER SUPPLY TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
MR. WEIR: I bog 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 system and source the drinking water in the dining room and bar is obtained?
Sin J. T. HIBBERT: I will answer this question, in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman. The drinking water in the dining room and bar is drawn direct from the main tanks of the building, which are filled from the main pipes connected with the artesian wells and waterworks of the Government at Orange Street, Trafalgar Square. Owing, however, to the deficiency of the supplies from Orange Street, the Government mains have frequently to be replenished from the mains of the Chelsea Waterworks Company to the extent of half the consumption.
MR. WEIRasked if the water thus obtained was placed in the same tank as that from the artesian wells?
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I cannot say.

JABEZ BALFOUR.
SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Federal Judge has granted the extradition of Jabez Balfour; and, if so, whether there is any right of appeal?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,: We have not yet heard the decision of the Federal Judge at Salta.

PROMOTION IN THE CUSTOMS SERVICE.
MR. M. AUSTIN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the new Regulations which came into force at the commencement of the present year in the Customs Service has militated seriously against the promotion of many servants in the Service, and that under this new Regulation the position of examining officers has been changed to their disadvantage; and whether such Regulation is in accordance with the Minute of 24th March, 1891?
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: It is surmised that the question refers to the modification of the system of keeping the warehousing accounts introduced in the Department on 1st January last. I am informed that this modification has had no serious effect as yet, but may probably lead ultimately to some reduction in the number of examining officers of the First and Second Classes. Such a possibility is, however, expressly contemplated by the Treasury Minute referred to, which states that the augmentation or the decrease of numbers in any class must depend on the requirements of the Public Service as estimated by the Board.

THE WARINA INCIDENT.
SIR E.ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the French Government have offered any reparation for the death of the three British officers who were killed in the French attack on

995
British Forces near Warina in December last?
SIR E. GREY: There is nothing to add to the previous answer given on the 13th of July. The position of Warina appears to be open to much dispute.
SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: May I ask what that answer was?
SIR E. GREY: It is impossible to settle this question satisfactorily until the position of Warina has been determined beyond dispute. If the hon. Gentleman can throw any additional information upon that subject, we shall be very glad to have it.
MR. J. W. LOWTHER: Has the Government taken any steps to ascertain the position of Warina?
SIR E. GREY: The actual position is this: One set of calculations was produced which placed Warina in a certain position. Since then another set of calculations has been brought forward placing it in a different position. It is impossible to put this question beyond dispute without sending an astronomical expedition to make a survey on the spot, and Her Majesty's Government have not taken any steps to do that. In view of the pending discussion with the French Government on many subjects of dispute in West Africa, I think this would not be the proper time to do that.

THE BOTHWELL PARK DISTURBANCE.
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?
SIR G. TREVELYAN: I have received from the County Clerk of Lanarkshire Reports by the Chief Constable in regard to the occurrence referred to in the question, but as I am informed that Crown Counsel last week ordered that four of the persons concerned in the disturbance which then took place should be tried summarily before the Sheriff, and as the whole facts will doubtless be publicly elicited at the trial, it is probably better that I should
996
say nothing further in regard to the case at present.

THE CROFTERS' ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
MR. WEIRhad on the Paper the following question:—To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the Government have not given effect to the promises made by its Leaders, prior to and during the last General Election, that immediately on the return to power of the Liberal Party a Crofters' Acts Amendment Bill would be introduced and passed, he will give an assurance that at the beginning of next Session these pledges will be redeemed?
MR. SPEAKER: The only part of this question that is in Order is that which asks whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give an assurance that at the beginning of next Session a Crofters' Acts Amendment Bill will be introduced.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): I have already told my hon. Friend—and I think I have answered a great many questions on this subject—that I can give no undertaking with reference to any measure that may be introduced next Session.
DR. CLARK: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the number of these people is getting so few that probably very few will be left to come under the Act next year?
MR. TOMLINSON: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, may I ask whether those Members who have stated in the House that they have received undertakings with reference to particular measures next Session are mistaken?
DR. MACGREGOR (Invernessshire): With respect to this Bill, Sir, which has now been finally withdrawn from the Order Paper by the Government, may I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether its abandonment in the face of the enemy is not a piece of political cowardice unworthy of Her Majesty's Government?
[These questions were not answered.]

GRANTS TO SMALL RURAL SCHOOLS.
MR. TALBOT: I beg to ask the Vice President of the

997
Committee of Council on Education whether it is the practice of the Department to refuse grants to small rural schools under Article 105, although the population within a radius of two miles is under 500, on the ground that the population of the civil parish in which the school is situate exceeds that number; whether he is aware that this practice excludes many schools quite as necessitous as many which receive such grants; and whether the opinion of the Law Officers has been taken as to this practice being in accordance with the Education Code?
MR. ACLAND: If the hon. Member refers to the Article in question, he will see that the claim for a grant may be made on either alternative—of the population of the school district, or of the population within two miles of the school by the nearest road. There is not, and has not ever been, any such practice as that stated in the question.

SMALL-POX AT COVENTRY.
MR. HOPWOOD: I beg to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board whether he is aware that William Windridge, who died of smallpox in the City Hospital, Coventry, on the 22nd June last, was certified by the medical officer, Dr. Fenton, to have died unvaccinated, described by the doctor to be an anti-vaccinationist, who refused the protection afforded by vaccination, and died a martyr to his prejudices; whether the Department has since received a statement, signed by the mother, widow, and brother of the deceased, that he had been vaccinated and was an advocate of vaccination; and whether the Department will inquire into the matter, with a view of preventing the above from appearing in the Registrar General's statistics as an unvaccinated case?
THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Sir W. FOSTER,): The statements on the question are substantially correct, but inquiry has since been made of Dr. Fenton, and he states that Windridge, on more than one occasion, stated to him that he did not think that he had been vaccinated. He states further that he failed
998
to discover the slightest mark of cicatrix or other evidence left by the operation. Windridge had not only refused to be vaccinated, but had made statements to Dr. Fenton with regard to vaccination which satisfied him that he was opposed to vaccination. Dr. Fenton subsequently made inquiry of the mother of the deceased, but could not obtain any satisfactory information as to his having been vaccinated. In face of these contradictory statements I can only say that if my hon. Friend will obtain information for me as to the date and place of the vaccination of the deceased, I will make further inquiry.

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL.
MR. HOPWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will, in the Recess, consider the suggestions of Her Majesty's Judges of a Court of Criminal Appeal and Revision of Sentences, with the view of legislation in the next Session of Parliament?
MR. ASQUITH: The suggestions of the Judges have been and are receiving the careful attention of the Government. With reference to legislation next Session, I must refer my hon. Friend to the answer given just now to another question by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

DR. CORNELIUS HERZ.
MR. SCOTT MONTAGU (Hants,): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Dr. Cornelius Herz is still in custody at Bournemouth at the expense of the British Government, under warrants granted by Sir John Bridge, Chief Magistrate of the Metropolitan Police Courts, issued in January, 1893, upon requisitions by the Government of the French Republic; whether, on the 3rd of August, 1894, Dr. Herz was condemned in his absence by a French Court, on the same charges as those set out in the warrants on which he was arrested in England, to imprisonment for five years and a fine of 3,000 francs; whether the French Court declined to admit a medical certificate, signed by Sir Richard Quain, Sir George Johnson, Dr. T. Lauder Brunton, and Dr. William Frazer, stating that, in their opinion, Dr. Herz's removal

999
from his present place of detention would endanger his life; whether the French Court refused to allow Dr. Herz to be represented by Counsel or otherwise, or to allow any statement to be made on his behalf; and whether the continued detention of Dr. Herz under the warrants issued in January, 1893, is legal, having regard to the fact that his case has now been adjudicated upon by the French Courts?
MR. ASQUITH: Her Majesty's Government have received no official intimation from the French Government with reference to the case of Dr. Herz, and I only know what has appeared in the newspapers, and can express no opinion upon the question whether his continued detention under the warrants issued in January, 1893, is legal. That is a question of law. If Dr. Herz is advised that anything which has happenend under his further detention is illegal, it is competent to him to test the matter by an application to an English Court of Law. I intend to take the opinion of the Law Officers on the subject.

TORPEDO BOAT DESTROYERS.
MR. MACDONALD: On behalf of the Member for Portsmouth (Mr. Clough) I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty are satisfied with the two first of the 42 torpedo boat destroyers recently ordered; and whether they are taking care to utilise their experience as to details of the Havock and Hornet in the construction of other vessels of the same class?
THE SECRETAEY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH,): The Admiralty are glad to recognise that Messrs. Yarrow have been the contractors who have first constructed and completed with rapidity for the British Navy vessels of the high speed of the Havock and Hornet. On behalf of the Admiralty I am happy to express our satisfaction with the manner in which the contract has been carried out. We are also ready to acknowledge the value which we attach to the designs of Messrs. Yarrow for the machinery of these vessels. Practical proof has been
1000
given of this favourable opinion by our use of certain parts of these designs as a guide to contractors for some of the other torpedo boat destroyers since ordered.

THE CASE OF EMILY CULLIFORD.
MR. BURNIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a communication from Mrs. Gertrude Jenner, of Denvor Castle, Cardiff, with reference to the case of Emily Culliford, who was wrongly charged with murder at Penarth, and acquitted at the Swansea Assizes, and who, whilst in custody and before her trial, is stated to have been subjected to unnecessarily harsh treatment; whether suitable compensation can be given to Miss Culliford for the wrong she has sustained; and whether he will take steps to prevent undue severity towards persons in custody before they are tried?
MR. ASQUITH: I have inquired into this matter, and a full answer is being sent to Miss Jenner dealing with the various grounds of complaint alleged by her. The general result is that, beyond the indignity to which all innocent per sons are unfortunately exposed who are arrested on a gross charge such as this, which turns out to be unfounded, there is no reason for thinking that Miss Culliford was harshly treated. It is impossible, therefore, to recognise any claim to compensation without establishing a precedent which could be invoked by all persons who are shown to have been wrongfully accused. Any case in which undue severity is alleged will be carefully investigated, and if the allegation is sustained there will be no hesitation in, taking fit action.

MOTION.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (EXEMPTION FROM THE STANDING ORDER).
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "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."—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 91; Noes 52.—(Division List, No. 230.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.—(No. 10.)

    COMMITTEE. [Progress, 10th August.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 2.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 9, after the last Amendment, to leave out 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 again proposed, "That those words he there inserted."
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, that when his speech was interrupted at midnight yesterday he was proceeding to examine the grounds on which the demand of those who promoted the Bill was based—he meant the demand for extending its provisions universally and uniformly to every part of the country. He ventured to say that on this subject there had been a considerable shifting of position on the part of those who represented the miners—in the Miners' Federation. They used to be threatened, not so very long ago, with the horrors of a universal strike if this Bill were not passed, and appeals were made to Parliament to pass this Bill in order to preserve the country from the miseries which such a strike would involve. But they hoard little about the universal strike now, and the reason was obvious. On this question a universal strike was impossible so long as there were important districts in which the Organisations of the miners were opposed to the Bill. This, however, brought him to a very important point. The fact that there were these Organisations opposed to the Bill was the justification put forward for not accepting an Amendment to apply the principle of local option in regard to the Bill. What did that mean? It meant simply this: that this legislation was sought simply and solely in order to coerce those districts which were unwilling to come under the provisions of the measure. Had it really come to this: that in the
    1002
    endeavour to coerce districts embracing considerably upwards of 100,000 miners, Parliament was to be asked to assist? If it were so, all he could say was that their traditional liberties must indeed be in danger. There was only one justification in any degree plausible which he could imagine for legislation of this kind, and it was that such legislation was urgently demanded in the interests of the health or the safety of those who were employed in the mines. As a matter of fact, in the former history of this question this plea was frequently put forward, but it had been fairly examined by the Royal Commission on Labour, and he did not hesitate to say that it had been completely upset. The conclusions at which the Commission arrived were that the miners were not in an exceptional position as regarded the unhealthiness of their employment, but, on the contrary, that their employment was on the whole more healthy than the average of employments, and that as regarded safety the Eight Hours Bill would not promote safety nor diminish the risk of accidents, but would be likely to have the effect of increasing them. These conclusions arrived at by the Royal Commission were not disputed in the Minority Report. And further than that, in the Debate of yesterday there was not a single claim put forward for this Bill on the ground of health and safety. This was a very striking fact, and he could not say how far, in the first instance, pleas more on the ground of health and safety were put forward by the miners with thorough conviction: but he had no doubt that it was those pleas which secured for this Bill a great deal of the sympathy which it received, and a great deal of the support which was given to it by those who had no personal interest in the question electorately or otherwise. If this high ground of health and of safety was abandoned, as he had no doubt it had been, what remained? There remained the lower ground of self-interest, and that alone. Yesterday, only three hon. Members spoke against local option, and each of them opposed the Amendment on the ground alone that if it were passed those districts which adopted the Bill would be unfavourably affected as compared with those districts which did not. That was really the only argument which had been put forward against the

    1003
    Amendment. It was surely a new and indefensible doctrine that Parliament was to be called in in order to redress the balance between one district and another. But the inequalities between districts did not apply alone to hours of work. There were inequalities as regarded wages, and in other respects. Were they, then, to extend the principle of this legislation to all these inequalities, so as to bring about uniformity all round? Properly regarded, the Bill was nothing but a step in the direction of collectivism. They might as well be asked to go the whole way and take the mines directly under the management of the State. That would be a conclusion which would be not unsatisfactory to some Members of that House; for example, to the Member for Battersea (Mr. John Burns), but was that a step which the House generally could contemplate? What the Bill actually proposed did not amount to this, but it was in this direction and was sufficiently absurd, for it meant that more than 100,000 miners were to be brought under the yoke of uniformity, and subject against their will to the conditions of this Bill, in order that the Miners' Federation might be assisted to reduce the output and to keep up the price of coal in the hope that by that means they would be able to maintain wages. To put the matter in other words, what Parliament was asked to do was to help the Miners' Federation—the most powerful organisation of workmen in the world—to coerce the districts of South Wales, Northumberland, and Durham, in order that wages might be kept up, and the price of coal raised to the consumers all over the country. A more impudent claim had never been put forward by any body of men, yet it was for this claim that the Government gave exceptional facilities.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out, in line 1, the word "county," and insert the words "district as hereinafter determined."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'county' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question proposed,
    "That the words 'In any district as herein-after determined in which a majority of the
    1004
    workmen employed underground in the mines therein shall so resolve in manner hereinafter provided, and so long as such resolution shall remain unrescinded,' be there inserted."
    SIR J. JOICEYsaid, he had listened carefully to the arguments put forward by the promoters of this Bill——
    SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, he would ask the Chairman whether the Debate upon the Amendment to the Amendment would not be limited to the subject-matter thereof?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, Yes; the discussion must be confined to the substitution of "district" for "county."
    SIR J. JOICEYsaid, that with regard to the Amendment which had just been moved by the hon. Member opposite, so far as he was concerned he could not see, whether it was accepted or not, that it would make very much difference to the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr. Whether they took the county or the district, it did not affect the principle of the thing. There was one matter which had pleased him in the course of the Debate which had taken place. He was led to understand from the statement made by the hon. Member for the Ince Division, who was one of the promoters of the Bill, that the promoters were not disposed to accept any Amendment to the Bill. Now, the Member for Sunderland had his name upon the Bill, and might, he presumed, be considered to be a pro moter of the Bill——
    SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, he understood this Amendment would be accepted. Might he suggest that it be made at once, so that the lines of the Debate might not be limited.
    SIR J. JOICEYsaid, he did not know what authority the right hon. Baronet had for saying that the Amendment would be accepted. He himself was not in a position to say whether it would or would not be accepted.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUEsaid, that as he understood those in favour of the Amendment would accept the Amendment suggested, it would be convenient that it should be accepted at once, so that a general discussion might be taken upon the amended Amendment.
    MR. J. WILSONsaid, he should be glad to know what was the meaning of the word "district."
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that a subsequent Amendment proposed to define the districts. It provided that the districts were to be determined by the Home Secretary, and would be found on page 15.
    MR. D. A. THOMASsaid that, so far as he was concerned, he was prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leeds. He was not, however, prepared to accept the hon. Gentleman's definition of "district." He rather questioned the ability of not only the present Home Secretary but Home Secretaries in general to define what was a district.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, he did not explain his Amendment in his speech. He put down in the Amendment what he conceived to be the meaning of a district.
    SIR J. JOICEY,continuing, said, he was glad to find that among the promoters of this Bill there was one, at all events, who had exercised his usual independence of character, and had not concurred in the decision which had been come to by the hon. Member for Ince and his friends to refuse all compromise on this subject whatever. The hon. Member for Sunderland had not only agreed to support this Amendment, but had made a good and sensible speech in its favour. He hoped that the example set by him would be followed by others, and that they might find a means of corning to a compromise which would satisfy the districts represented by himself and the hon. Member for Merthyr. This Bill was one of vital importance to the district he represented, and he must say that in his opinion it was being pushed forward with very great haste. He thought that when a great change of this sort was contemplated it would be a good thing that it should he subjected not only to full and complete discussion in that House, but that the details of the measure affecting the change should be thoroughly thrashed out in the constituencies which were specially interested in the question. He ventured to say that the provisions of this Bill and the effect of the Bill were most imperfectly understood, not only in the mining constituencies but throughout the country, and he should have preferred it to have been held over to another Parliament, when its provisions would have been more thoroughly discussed in the country, so
    1006
    that the constituencies might be fully aware of the effect likely to ensue. A great deal had been said as to the large number of miners who were in favour of this Bill; but he maintained, notwithstanding what had been said by the hon. Member for Ince and his friends, they had no reliable information as to the opinion of the great bulk of the miners within the districts they represented. In Durham and Northumberland there was a small percentage of miners who were in favour of the Bill, as against a large percentage who were opposed to it. What had the Federation districts done to enlighten them on this question? He would like to know whether those hon. Members who supported the Bill had ascertained the feeling of their constituents with regard to its proposals. He was certain that there was a large number of men in the Federated districts who wished to have nothing whatever to do with the Bill, and he would not be satisfied with the mere assertion of one or two gentlemen that that was not so. If Parliament sought to pass an important measure of this kind—a measure which proposed to take away the right of every miner in the country to use his labour to the best of his ability and judgment—they were in duty bound to see that the application of the principle was put forward in such a way that it would cause the least possible amount of friction and the least possible injustice. The measure was entirely in the nature of an experiment. He defied any man to state accurately what would be the result if it became law. In fact, if ever there was an occasion when the House of Commons had been invited to take a leap in the dark this was one. There were many districts which would suffer by this measure much more than others. It was all very well for hon. Members who came from Yorkshire and Lancashire to say that if this Amendment were passed great injury would be done to their districts; but they said nothing about the much greater injury that would be done to the districts represented by himself and the hon. Member for Merthyr. He maintained that the effect produced by the Bill in its present form would be much more disastrous to their districts than it would be to the districts represented by the hon. Member for Eccles and the hon. Member for Ince.

    1007
    There were some parts of the country where very little effect would be produced. In Yorkshire and in Staffordshire they practically had the benefit of this measure already, and the Bill would make very little difference there. It would increase the cost a little, but it would be a mere trifle to the effect produced in other districts which were not so fortunately placed as they were. The hon. Member for Merthyr had made an admirable speech, much of which would stand for a defence of Durham and Northumberland in this matter; but he maintained that whatever strong arguments they might have to support their case, it was almost impossible to get the ordinary Member of Parliament to understand the practical and the technical difficulties that they would have to contend with in this measure. Durham and Northumberland would specially suffer under this measure. He asserted, however, that they had special claims, for they constituted about the largest coal-producing district in the country, and were among the oldest collieries working in the country. Durham had been working for very many years, and he certainly thought they had carried on their work there in as safe and practical a way as any coal-producing district could. If they looked at the loss of life which took place in Northumberland and Durham they would find that they compared most favourably with other districts. In Durham and Northumberland at the present time the hewers did not work on the average more than from six to seven hours, and if the existing hours were to be shortened the probability was that the men would be so pushed to earn a living wage that they would neglect the ordinary precautions for preserving their own lives and limbs. To make this a compulsory Bill applicable to the North of England would also put the coalowners at a great disadvantage in the selling of their coal. Already they had very great difficulty in maintaining their trade owing to the strong and active competition to which they were subjected in all parts of the world. The export trade of Durham was about 50 per cent, of the whole, and it was all to districts where this keen competition existed. Large collieries were now open in Australia, New Zealand, China, and elsewhere, and in his own experience he had seen the Northumber-
    1008
    land and Durham coalowners lose one market after another. The South American markets had almost disappeared owing to the competition of New Zealand and Australia, and he had been told the other day by a large merchant that the time was not far distant when the whole of the coal used east of the port of Aden would be produced by India, China, Japan, and Australasia. Comparing the production of this country with Australia, Germany, Japan, China, and the United States, since 1883 the United Kingdom had gone up from 160,000,000 to 183,000,000 tons, while those other countries had gone up from 210,000,000 to 296,000,000 tons. Under these circumstances nobody could deny that foreign competition played a most important part in connection with this question. Notwithstanding that freights had so largely decreased, there was the utmost difficulty in maintaining our hold on foreign markets, and foreign competition was as real in coal as it was in agriculture or any other industry that now felt the weight of competition with the foreigner. The County of Durham had also special claims to consideration, because it had large manufactories which were entirely dependent upon the price of coal, and then again, upon those manufactories hundreds and thousands were dependent for their daily bread. Surely at a time like this—when every industry was suffering from depression—it was most unwise to have promoted a Bill like the present. Another strong claim that Durham and Northumberland had was that their methods of working their mines were altogether different to those which prevailed in other parts of the country. It was true that boys in those mines worked 10 hours a day, but it was a gross libel to describe them as galley slaves. Theirs, however, were not the only districts in which the boys were worked 10 hours underground. [An hon. MEMBER: "No."] There were many boys in the district represented by the Member for Ince who worked 10 hours, and there were great advantages in the Durham system over theirs. They were far healthier, stronger, and happier than the hands employed in manufacturing towns; and as soon as they reached the age of 19 or thereabouts and became hewers, they only worked about 6½ hours per day. The boys who work exceptionally

    1009
    hard were the hand-putters, but they formed only a very small proportion of the boys employed in the Durham mines, and they had inducements to work hard, for they were on piece-work and earned good wages. If the boys in the Durham and Northumberland mines were compared with those employed in the factories of his hon. Friend the Member for Ince and in other factories, it would be found that the former were the stronger and healthier. Out of 100 occupations, at the head of which stood that of the clergyman, there were only 30 showing longer lives than that of the coal miner. Then, again, there could be no doubt that the adoption in Durham and Northumberland of a compulsory eight hours' system would greatly increase the cost of production. He admitted that there must be a limit, but he maintained that they were carrying the limit too far. He found that in 1890 two-thirds of the pits in Durham were working practically 11 hours a day. They decided to reduce that to 10 hours, and it entailed a good deal of discussion, because it was thought that it would be a very serious charge in the shape of cost. What had been the result? In one colliery, particulars of which he had with him, there were 325 men employed in 1890, and it required 390 men to get exactly the same quantity. Another colliery produced 358,000 tons in 1890, and in 1891, with the reduction, they produced only 321,000 tons. These were facts which the Committee could not get over. Taking the County of Durham, what was the effect produced? In 1890 the amount produced in the County of Durham was 30,265,000 tons, and in order to do that 86,799 men were employed. When two-thirds of the collieries reduced their working time one-half, the quantity produced was 29,807,000—showing a reduction of 457,000 tons, while the increased number of men employed was 5,789. So that to get a decrease of 1½ per cent, they were obliged to employ 6 per cent, more men. Between 1888 and 1891 Durham increased its output to 142,000 tons, while he found that in Yorkshire they increased the output to 2,213,560 tons. One undoubted effect of the shortening of the hours would be to injure seriously all the old and weakly men who were hewers, and who could not
    1010
    put on the additional power of work that shorter hours would entail. The tendency would be to drive employers to select young and sturdy men, to the great detriment of the older hands, to whom at the present time every leniency and consideration were shown. It had been said by some of its friends that the Bill was promoted with a view to avoiding strikes, but in the North of England he believed it would rather have a tendency to promote them. In the North they had now Conciliation Boards and Joint Committees who were able amicably to adjust matters as between employers and employed. How would it be if such a Bill as this were passed? It would destroy to a large extent the value of the work done by these Conciliation Boards during the past 20 years.
    MR. ROBY: I rise to Order, Sir. May I ask whether the hon. Member is speaking to the Amendment?
    SIR J. JOICEY: May I ask, Sir, whether I am not showing cause why Durham should be excluded from the Bill?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Question is, whether you are to put this power in the hands of the majority of the workmen employed in any district.
    SIR J. JOICEYsaid, he was showing that Durham had a very strong claim to local option, but he was not surprised that his hon. Friends, the supporters of this Bill, who produced no argument and illustration of their own, should exhibit impatience when it came from the other side. They seemed to think they could as easily make upon Northumberland and Durham the impression which they had made upon Her Majesty's Government. If he were not to do his duty, and to strongly represent the case of Durham as he was striving to do, the probability was that somebody else would represent Chester-le-Street after the next Election. He was sent to Parliament because he understood mining questions, and so long as he had a seat in the House he would not hesitate to express his opinion upon such questions. What would this Bill do? There were only three methods by which it could be worked. The first would be to have one shift, which meant a complete departure from and a complete break-up of the whole system that now existed in North-

    1011
    umberland and Durham. He was sure the men would never consent to such a change. The second plan would be to adopt two shifts of men and two shifts of hoys, but here there was the difficulty that they could not get the number of boys that would be required, so that there was little or no chance of working a double-shift system. The third alternative would be to have three shifts of men and two shifts of boys, which was equally impracticable, and he maintained that however they strove to apply this to Northumberland and Durham in many of the old pits all plans were equally impracticable. He opposed the Bill because he believed it would seriously injure the Counties of Durham and Northumberland. He maintained that the House of Commons ought to listen to the voice of 120,000 men in the Counties of Durham and Northumberland whom this Bill would affect. The miners of the North had a perfect right to manage their own domestic affairs—quite as much right as the people of Ireland. Was it to be supposed that the thrusting upon them against their will of such a Bill as this would increase their respect for the law? He did not wish to utter threats, but it was quite possible that if 120,000 men made us their minds to ignore a law of this kind Parliament would hesitate before it attempted to thrust that law upon them. He opposed this Bill because he believed it was unequal in its burden upon the country and unjust in its application so far as the North of England was concerned, and he should not cease to oppose it in every possible way, because he believed that in so doing he was not only carrying out the wishes of the people he represented, but that his action would be for the advantage of the whole country.
    MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid, he had the misfortune not to be in sympathy on this question with his colleagues in the representation of Durham, but observations he had been able to make during a not limited period had convinced him that among the miners of the county there was daily growing a sense of sympathy with the objects sought by the promoters of the Bill. No doubt the progress of that sentiment had been to a large extent checked, and properly checked, by the great authority and not
    1012
    undeserved influence of those who were the leaders of the' miners; but not with standing that properly-exercised influence and the great weight of the arguments that might be adduced against the application of an Eight Hours Bill to Durham, there was a growing feeling that it was only just and reasonable that the Legislature should intervene for purpose of assisting the miners in other districts of England to obtain that fair measure of labour which combination had hitherto been unsuccessful in securing for them. It was a remarkable fact that the most powerful and leading advocates of the application of an eight hours law were to be found amongst those who were formerly opposed to any legislative interference at all, and as an instance of that he need only mention one name, that of Mr. Cowie, the respected representative of the miners of Yorkshire, who had been convinced by the experience of recent years that combination by means of Trade Unions was entirely incompetent to grapple with the question. He was bound to say at the outset that he did not concur with the strong observations made by the the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyne, as to the "galley slave-like" treatment of boys underground. He agreed that 10 hours' work for lads underground as compared with the 7½ or 8 hours worked by the men was an invidious distinction, and one which ought to be abolished, seeing that it necessarily clashed—as was graphically stated at the Miners' Conference—with the sentiments of the boys themselves. In these days when the Imperial Government and Local Authorities were striving to bring education of a high standard within the reach of the humbler classes it certainly was antagonistic to the efficient working of the educational system that boys should be kept in the mines for the long period of 10 hours, and he believed that the miners of Durham themselves had awakened to the conviction that it was an improper thing that their boys should be allowed to work such long hours.
    MR. J. WILSON: Might I ask what reasons the hon. Gentleman has for making that remark?
    MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid, his hon. Friend challenged him to state his authority. He thought he could give ample and most conclusive reasons for

    1013
    the statement. He had frequently spoken at meetings in his own constituency against the system of allowing boys to remain in the pit so long, and the miners had always received his observations with sympathy.
    MR. J. WILSON: Is that all the proof you have?
    MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid, he had not had the opportunity of consulting every individual miner, and he frankly admitted that he could not give any further proof; but he thought his experience was sufficient to show that the miners of Durham were awakening to a sense that 10 hours was an excessive period for boys to work underground. He would like to add that he was perfectly certain that if the hon. Member who had interrupted him or the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division of Northumberland believed for a moment that the boys were suffering under any grievous wrong, they would be the first to raise their voices against a continuance of it. He fully acknowledged that they did not believe any such wrong existed. He had listened with interest to the Debate which had been carried on by those who were intimately associated with the coal industry of this country, and he had noted—as no doubt others had done—what had been said as to the danger likely to accrue to mining if this measure were carried. The very same arguments against legislative interference with labour were adduced in 1872 on the occasion of the Mines Act as had been advanced in that Debate.
    MR. STOREY: Never by the men.
    MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid, he was prepared to admit that legislation in the interests of adult male labour was a comparatively recent departure, but it was not altogether novel. It had been found necessary for the Legislature to interfere in respect of the Employers' Liability Act to prohibit men from contracting themselves out of its provisions, and in the Coal Mines Regulation Act it had been found necessary to insert stringent Rules. He might multiply these instances of legislative interference with adult male labour. But that was not the point he wished to speak upon. He wished to deal more particularly with the employment of boys over long hours.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That is not the point of the Amendment, which raises the question of local option.
    MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid, the reason why local option was demanded was that the retention of boy labour in its present form was necessary, and could not be done without. Therefore, he submitted that the point he was making was pertinent to the Amendment. He would only say further, with regard to the interference of the Legislature in this matter, that in 1872, in the course of the Debate on the Mines Act, they were told by Sir George Elliott, a most distinguished member of the trade, that it would be a grievous wrong to the coal industry of Durham if the boys' hours were limited, and he added that he was prepared to pit the boys of Durham against against any who might be produced from other parts of the United Kingdom. Indeed, following the same line of the hon. Member for Durham, he spoke of them as skipping like March hares when they left the pits.
    MR. J. WILSON: When did I use such poetical language?
    MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I only said the observations followed the same line. He ventured to suggest that unless they could have put before them—chapter and verse—some intelligible grounds for assuming that a measure of the kind now before the Committee were passed disastrous consequences would follow in contradistinction to the results which accrued from similar legislation in 1842 and in 1872—unless the opponents of the Bill were prepared to prove that the results they depicted were certain to follow, then the Committee was entitled to treat their arguments with as little respect as the effects of the 1842 and 1872 legislation justified them in treating the arguments advanced in those years. It was curious to note the community of feeling on this subject between men who had the interest of the working classes so much at heart, and those who represented the capitalists of the county. He could not help thinking that that feeling was due to the fact that the coal trade of Durham could be carried on on a more economical basis under the present system than the trade of other districts could. The output in Durham in 1890 was 368·4 tons per man, while in Lancashire it was only 268·6 per man; and the selling price of coal in Durham was, in

    1015
    1889, 5s. 9d. per ton, as compared with 6s. 6d. in Lancashire and, he believed, in Yorkshire. Then it was obvious that this system of short hours for the men, combined with long hours for the boys, had managed to work very economically and very effectively in the County of Durham, and had enabled the county to trade to better advantage than other districts. Under the unequal conditions at present existing as between Durham and the other coal-producing districts of Great Britain, the latter were certainly able, substantially and practically, to hold their own. But while he made those observations in favour of the general principle of the Bill, he did not see any adequate reason why the system of local option should not be adopted. He had listened with attention to his hon. Friend the Member for Ince in order to find out what strong reasons he could advance against the permitting of local option. The hon. Gentleman stated that unless the conditions in different districts were equal, one district would be subjected to the temptation of working longer hours in order to compete with other districts. But unequal conditions already existed. Unequal geological conditions, unequal hours of work, unequal rates of pay, unequal facilities for haulage all existed as between the various coalfields; but, notwithstanding those varying conditions, it was found that the coalfields of Lancashire and Yorkshire and Wales enjoyed a trade which did not appear to run the slightest risk of being materially injured by the system prevailing in Northumberland and Durham. He did not think it was fairly to be expected that if local option were adopted there would be any fitful or capricious change in the manner of working coal in order to enable a district which was not within the magic circle successfully to compete with the districts which were within it. The hon. Member for Morpeth had recently told them that of the miners of Northumberland, 11,840 worked less than eight hours per day, and 15,874 more than eight hours. Of course, that included boys, and so forth. The figures given by the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnard Castle were to the effect that only 53 per cent. of the miners in Durham were coal-hewers, and the remaining 47 per cent., he took it, were men who worked more than eight hours a day.
    1016
    He repeated that while in sympathy with the principle of the Bill, he did not feel at liberty to vote against an Amendment which, in the belief of a very large number of persons immediately interested, would be disastrous to the industrial interests of Northumberland and Durham; but he believed that if the Bill were first made applicable to those districts desiring it—which would be Lancashire, Yorkshire, Staffordshire, and probably the bulk of South Wales—it would be found that before very long there would grow up in Northumberland and Durham a strong conviction of the advantages which would accrue to the community from a general adoption of the measure. For those reasons he pressed his hon. Friend to reconsider his determination to refuse to admit the principle of local option. He was sure that if his hon. Friend would admit that principle rather than allow the Bill to perish, he would be better serving his cause than if he endeavoured, in defiance of the opinion of a very large minority of those interested, to press the Bill through as it stood.
    MR. J. A. PEASEsaid, that before he moved the Amendment which stood in his name he would like to controvert one or two of the statements of the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken, and who had endeavoured to make out that something like 50 per cent, of the men employed in Northumberland and Durham were working over eight hours. As a matter of fact, 71·54 per cent, of those who were employed in the County of Durham were working under eight hours, and 76·68 per cent. of those employed in the County of Northumberland were working under eight hours. It followed that the numbers who would be directly affected by this Bill would be 28·46 per cent. in Durham, and 21·32 per cent. in Northumberland. Another statement which the hon. Member made was that in the County of Durham 368 tons of coal per man per annum were raised and sold at 5s. 9d. a ton, whilst in Lancashire 268 tons per man per annum were produced and sold at 6s. 6d. per ton. On these figures the hon. Member had based an assertion that in the County of Durham employers were more eager to produce fuel economically; but when the hon. Member made that assertion, he was

    1017
    undoubtedly misleading the House, and showing a want of knowledge of facts which should be well within the knowledge of a Representative of Durham. The coal in the County of Durham differed materially from the coal in many other parts of the country. It was, to a large extent, soft coal and brittle coal, and nobody was going to pay for coal of that kind the prices which they would pay for hard round coal. This was a sufficient answer to the figures which the hon. Member had chosen to make use of. The hon. Member also alluded to the ballot which had been taken in Northumberland and Durham on the subject of this Bill. In that ballot 56·6 of the miners voted against the Bill, 26·3 for it, and 21·1 were neutral, many, of course, being absent from causes over which they had no control, and some being employed at the time. Of those actually voting 66·6 voted against the Bill and 33·3 in favour of it, so that there was a majority of 2 to 1 against it. Those who voted, he might add, included all boys over the age of 16.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: Eighteen.
    MR. J. A. PEASEsaid, he thought the age was 16, but he accepted the correction. He claimed that these figures were very significant. Side by side with them the fact was to be borne in mind that in the district of the Miners' Federation the men had never been balloted at all. The inference which he drew was that the Miners' Federation know the weakness of their position, and that any figures they might obtain would not tell in their favour. Some indication of the feeling amongst the miners generally was, however, afforded by the Birmingham Conference. From what occurred at the Conference he was led to conclude that only one-third of the total number of men employed underground who were represented were in favour of the Bill; and that was the only public indication they had of a reliable character as to the extent to which the Bill was approved by the miners themselves. Some figures, however, also appeared in the Labour Commission's Report which indicated what were the views working men themselves took of the Bill. In 1890, at the Liverpool Trades Union Congress, 193 delegates voted for legislative interference and l55 against, while 109
    1018
    were neutral. Three years afterwards, when the Congress was held at Belfast, the 193 for legislative intervention had dropped to 92, and the 155 against had fallen to 80, but the 109 neutral had increased to 265. Those figures went to show that there was no marked interest taken by those represented at the Trades Union Congress in the promotion of the Bill. He had never understood why the Federation refused to give evidence before the Labour Commission, unless it was that its leaders felt they would not be able to stand cross-examination. An experienced man, an engineer who had looked into the question, wrote to him some few months ago, not with a view to publicity, but because he (Mr. J. A. Pease) had asked for his opinion as to whether the adoption of an Eight Hours Bill for miners was practicable in the County of Durham, and that gentleman declared that, from whatever point of view the question was looked at, it seemed to him that the first effect of such a measure would be to reduce wages. If the Bill passed through Parliament without the addition of the local option principle he believed it would produce frightful misery in the County of Durham, and although the hon. Member for Eccles might think that a large number of the Representatives of Northumberland and Durham were speaking on the question, it must be remembered that it was one which vitally affected their constituents, and they felt bound to raise their voices in that House and do their best to protect those constituents and the livelihood they earned at so much risk. If the Bill passed as the hon. Members for Eccles and Ince desired that it should be passed, either it would become as much a dead letter as the Eight Hours Mining Bill had become in the United States, or the miners in the North of England would refuse by tens of thousands to conform to its provisions, and a nice position the Home Secretary would be placed in if he was called on to build a gaol for the honest, hard-headed, and industrious working men of the North of England. The number of boys in Northumberland and Durham was 16,090, and of those 6,000 were under 16. They, he admitted, were underground for 10 hours, and he regretted it, as did everyone who had anything to do with the coal industry in those counties. But even though they

    1019
    might wish to find some means of reducing the hours worked by those boys underground, it was desirable to look at the matter from a practical point of view. Taking, as an example, one large colliery in which 659 men and boys were employed, he found that the average time taken up in travelling to and from work underground was an hour and 16 minutes, while the interval during which the boys were not on duty was an hour and 13 minutes, so that they were only actually on duty for seven and a-half hours. He would put it to hon. Members who sympathetically viewed the position of the boys in Northumberland and Durham whether it was better that those boys should for three or four years perform 10 hours' work underground—many of them having practically only light work to perform—and for the rest of their lives should work seven hours underground, or that for the whole of their lives they should be employed for eight hours hard and fast. The boys did not suffer physically during those three or four years, and although he and others would like to see the number of hours reduced, he believed that, taken altogether, the system was beneficial for men and boys. Some experiments were, however, being conducted with a view to reducing the hours during which boys worked, and he was not sure that negotiations would not be entered into very shortly with a view to securing by voluntary arrangement some further reduction. Conciliation would, however, be needed on the part both of men and employers; and it might also be that some sacrifice would have to be made by parents if the hours were to be reduced without a material increase of the cost of the work. However that might be, he believed that a voluntary arrangement would enable the Counties of Northumberland and Durham to carry on their mining industry not only to their own satisfaction, hut in a way which would not compete injuriously with other districts which might approve of the Bill, and wish to place themselves within its scope. The Reports of the Labour Commission stated that coalmining presented a range and variety of conditions such as could be found in few other industries, and be thought it unfortunate that it should have been selected for such an experiment as that proposed by the Bill. The
    1020
    measure seemed to him, in fact, a Bill to restrict output, and such restriction must mean a lessening of the production of wealth which the community desired should be distributed among its members in the shape of food, clothing, shelter, and wages. He believed, whatever might be the fate that night of the local option Amendment, that if it had been considered earlier in the Session, it would, without doubt, have been carried, and that it was only because of the late period to which the discussion had been driven, that there was any danger of the Amendment being lost. He begged to move, as an Amendment to that Amendment, that the words "two-thirds majority" should be substituted for "a majority." There was, he submitted, some precedent for placing at that figure the majority which should decide whether the Bill should apply to a particular district. In the coal-mining industry in his own county it was required that there should be a two-thirds majority before a strike could take place; and a two-thirds majority was mentioned also in the Local Option Bill of the Government with respect to the liquor traffic. There wore some advantages in having something more than a bare majority of one, since it would secure stability and firmness, and promote satisfaction when the arrangement had been arrived at. On those grounds he moved the Amendment, but the point was one of detail, and he would be guided by the sense of the Committee with regard to it.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, after the word "majority," to insert the words "of two-thirds."—(Mr. J. A. Pease.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'of two-thirds' be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
    MR. FORWOODthought no Member of the Committee who, like himself, had sat through the whole of the Debates for two days past, but would allow that the discussions had been most important and interesting, largely conducted as they had been by Members more or less directly interested.
    THE CHAIRMANreminded the right hon. Gentleman that the only question

    1021
    before the Committee was whether "two-thirds" should be part of the Amendment.
    MR. WOOTTOX ISAACSONpointed out that the decision by two-thirds majority was a very well-known system, and it would, if adopted, meet the requirements of the South Wales districts. Unless the local option principle was favourable, he considered the Bill would be the cause of great injustice to the colliers of South Wales, and of an amount of misery of which the hon. Member who introduced the Bill had no knowledge. Only last year he happened to pass through the South Wales colliery districts, and there ho found a number of colliers who had been driven from their work simply at the orders of agitators' paid delegates. They could give no reason for having left their work, but they had given up their weekly wage, their wives and children had been reduced to semi-starvation, and their state of misery might have been avoided if only the local option two-thirds majority system had been in operation directing their conduct. The hon. Member for Rhondda knew perfectly well the miserable state of things brought about by the paid agitators.
    MR. ABRAHAM: No.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The only question before the Committee is that of "two-thirds" or "bare majority."
    MR. WOOTTON ISAACSONsaid, if the two-thirds majority had been adopted as the system for giving effect to local option, then such strikes as that to which he had just alluded would not have taken place, and the misery and desolation over the district would not have followed. The same principle applied under this Bill would save the men from the consequences of hastily yielding to the influence of agitators.
    SIR F. MILNERsaid, it was remarkable that the Committee received no advice on this important subject from Members of a Government who found time at the end of a weary Session for an important measure such as this, but did not take the trouble to assist in the discussion, and allowed the Treasury Bench to be empty for hours. It was only to be expected that a champion of local option like the Chancellor of the Exchequer should join in the discussion and sup-
    1022
    port the proposal, and yet in common with the Irish Members he took no part in discussion and probably would merely give a vote against the Amendment.
    THE CHAIRMANreminded the hon. Member that discussion should be confined to the question of "two-thirds" or "bare majority."
    SIR F. MILNERsaid, the few remarks lie had to offer were in support of the Amendment. The feeling of the mining classes generally had not been properly appreciated. It had been said by the opponents of the Amendment that the vast majority of the Miners' Federation were opposed to anything in the nature of local option. As he was given to understand that only the question of a two-thirds majority could now be alluded to, and that he could not enter upon the Amendment generally, he would only say that he had great pleasure in supporting the proposal for the two-thirds system as the only fair solution of the question when put to a district.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, he had considerable sympathy with the Amendment, but ho would suggest to the hon. Member that, in the interest of those who desired to express themselves on the Main Question, the Amendment should be withdrawn.
    MR. J. A. FEASEsaid, he did not wish to insist on the Amendment, though there was more to be said in its favour than against it. In deference to the general view he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. FORWOODsaid, as the Amendment now before the Committee was as to the adoption of the principle of local option in the application of the Bill, he, as one having no interest in the great industry immediately concerned, desired to explain the reasons that influenced his vote. He found great difficulty in deciding upon the vote he should give. To his mind the clause as it stood and the clause with the Amendment would be almost equally objectionable. In the one case, by the clause being passed unamended Parliament would deprive the labouring man of the liberty to work for

    1023
    such hours as he thought proper, and under the Amendment this power would be given to the majority of the labourers in a given district. Under the Amendment, if it became law, there would have to be constituted an entirely new Register of voters with special qualifications in regard to this matter, and he felt there would be great difficulty in the plan. At the same time, he was strongly opposed to a cast-iron rule in regard to working hours or other regulations of adult male labour, and therefore preferred the greater elasticity the Amendment would afford in various districts. In the Amendment, and, indeed, in the Bill, it was assumed that there was only one party to the contract, the employés; and the votes of the employés were, under the Amendment, to decide whether the Bill should be applied. But surely the employer had a large interest in the question? He, under the security of existing law, embarked his capital in the business, sinking a large amount in building, plant, &c, and under the Bill and Amendment the employer would be exposed by ex post facto legislation to have altogether new conditions imposed to handicap him in the conduct of his business. The Bill, whether with or without the Amendment, was a form of veiled protection, and protection in the most unscientific and clumsy form. It proposed to give to the workman protection in regard to the time for which he might sell his labour, forcing the purchaser of that labour to pay more for it, and so in a sense this was a system of protection. Just in the same way as a farmer who had wheat to sell might have protection for the labour by which he raised that wheat, so would, by the Bill, protection be given to miners' labour. But it was protection in a clumsy and unscientific form. The men were to he prevented from working more than a given number of hours, although health, strength, and inclination might induce them to extend those hours, and yet, at the same time, they would be exposed to all the competition of foreign labour and to that competition increased. Scientific protection placed a duty upon imported goods, and thus gave protection to home labour; but here was the labour left exposed to foreign competition, and protection was simply for the purpose of levelling up or levelling down the hours of labour in the various districts of the
    1024
    country. It had not been realised what an increased charge would be levied on trade industry and every household in the country. It had been said by the hon. Member for Merthyr, in the speech in which he quoted from the hon. Member for Rhondda, that the passing of the Bill would give employment to 20,000 more miners in South Wales to produce the same quantity of coal as was produced without this restriction. This was confirmed by a supporter of the Bill, who stated that the effect of the Bill would be to raise the cost of getting coal in all cases 4d., and in some cases more, per ton. The hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pease) estimated the extra cost of getting coal if the Bill were adopted at 6d. per ton, and, translating this fact into figures, this extra 6d. per ton in the production of coal, taking the total production in the United Kingdom to be 180,000,000 tons, meant an increase to the consumers of no less than £4,500,000 in the course of the year. The House should not lightly propose such an immense additional charge on the industry and everyday expenses of the country by a measure hurriedly passed immediately before the close of a long Session. Another figure would illustrate the effect of the Bill. One of our keenest competitors was the United States, and 6d. per ton would pay the carriage of coal in that country for 120 miles. To that extent, therefore, the Bill would carry back the area of our coalfields from the port of shipment. This was no idle fear, as would be shown, by the figures in reference to the competition between British and foreign coal producers. Coal could be delivered to-steamers in the port of New York at 11s. 6d. per ton, delivered alongside the vessel, but that coal could not be delivered in the port of London for less that 16s. or 17s. per ton. We pretended to ourselves that we had cheap coal, through which our industries flourished, but we would, by the Bill, add 6d. per ton to the cost of producing coal, while there was the enormous discrepancy existing in the cost of coal in those two great commercial ports. Why was the Bill urged with such vehemence? No one had ventured to say that coal mining was an unhealthy occupation, and in the face of established facts such a statement could not with truth be made. The proportion in the total number of miners of

    1025
    men employed up to the age of 60 was larger than in any other industry. The only valid argument in favour of the Bill was contained in the half-and-half speech of one of the hon. Members for Durham, who first led his hearers to sup pose that he was going to oppose the Amendment, basing his opposition on the employment of boys, and who finished by saying he would support the Amendment. If it were true that boys were employed in any of our coal mines for unfairly long hours, he would vote for an inquiry into that matter, and, if necessary, would support legislation in the boys' favour, similar to that already passed in favour of women and children employed in factories and workshops. That, however, should be dealt with separately and distinctly, and afforded no reason for such a Bill as this with its effect on trade and industry throughout the whole country. Ho felt that if once this step were taken, with or without the introduction of the local option principle, similar legislation could not be refused to other industries when asked for. There had been indications in discussions at Working Men's Congresses of the set of ideas in this direction——
    MR. PRITCHARD-MOROANrose to Order. The hon. Member was not addressing himself to the Amendment: ho was considering what might possibly happen should the Bill become law.
    THE CHAIRMANunderstood the right hon. Gentleman to be arguing for the Amendment and against the Bill.
    MR. FORWOODsaid, he preferred the Bill with the Amendment, although with the Amendment adopted his objection would not be removed, as it would afford some degree of elasticity to the operation. His strong objection to the Bill with the Amendment was that, if it passed, it would encourage other claims, which could not be resisted, for similar legislation in the interest of other industries. Parliament had no right to impose on workmen in this country an additional tax on coal for household use (which would also affect wages in regard to the cost of coal for manufacturing purposes), and yet refuse to other workmen the same protection to labour as would by the Bill be extended to miners. If the Bill as amended were proceeded with——
    THE CHAIRMANreminded the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill as amended
    1026
    was not before the Committee; the Question simply was whether the proposed Amendment should be adopted.
    MR. FORWOODbowed to the ruling, but in following the course of the Debate he had heard the question of foreign competition discussed. The Bill would increase the cost of production, and in the result would affect this country unfavourably in regard to foreign competition as well as seriously and prejudicially affecting the home consumers. In deference to the Chairman's ruling he would not further press that point, but he apprehended be would not be out of Order in alluding to the argument put forward by the promoters of the Bill against the Amendment, that it was desirable to put mines in every district upon a somewhat equal level. In other words, as the mines of Northumberland and Durham were at the present time working more economically and with greater advantage to the miners than were mines in other parts of the country, therefore a Bill should be passed which would handicap those mines, and put them on a level with mines in the Midland districts. Against such a proposition he supported the Amendment; but should the Amendment become part of the Bill, he should vote against the Bill in its ultimate stage, believing that to pass such a Bill would be one of the worst day's work the House could do for the interests of the working classes of the country.
    MR. H. J. WILSONsaid, only a few words would be necessary to explain why he should vote in favour of the Amendment. He voted for the Second Reading of the Bill with the intention of supporting certain Amendments in Committee, of which this was one. He had no interest in the coal trade, but he had a considerable number of miners in his constituency who, he believed were largely, if not unanimously, opposed to this local option proposal. He would like to please those mining constituents of his by the vote he gave, but he was quite unable to see that in order to please them he should vote for putting a burden on a large number of men in other places who believed that it would result injuriously to themselves, their employers, and the public interest, The Bill with this Amendment would give those who desired the change the opportunity of getting it, but he could

    1027
    not think it fair to forcibly impose the Bill on large minorities who did not desire it. This was his reason for supporting the Amendment, and he was not deterred from giving that support by the threat that if the Amendment were carried the Bill would be withdrawn. The responsibility for the loss of the Bill must rest with those who withdrew it, not upon those who desired these modifications in its terms.
    MR. PRITCHARD-MORGANsaid, he did not take the same view on this subject as his colleague in the representation of Merthyr. Either he or his hon. Friend must be mistaken in the estimate formed of the views of the miners of the district, but each was prepared to take the responsibility of the position taken up. This was somewhat beside the question, but it was evident that each was more or less honest in his convictions, and offered his opinion in the House for what it was worth. The immediate question was whether or not there should be any option in regard to the application of the Bill. The passing of the Second Reading of the Bill by a large majority established the principle that there should be legislative limitation of hours of work in mines, and the question now was should some districts be excepted from the general rule. In his view eight hours' hard and honest work in a mine was as much as any man could possibly do; after that he ought to have rest. What a man did in the way of work beyond that eight hours was of very little value to himself or his employers. He could speak with some knowledge on the subject, for mining had for him a life-long interest, and he did not hesitate to say that eight hours' work in a mine was all that could be expected from a man having due regard to his own health and the safety of those who worked with him. He submitted that no man should be allowed to work more than eight hours in the bowels of the earth, his own interests and those of his family being alike opposed to it. He could not shut his eyes to the fact that the reason of the opposition to the Bill was based on their knowledge that the men would have the cards in their own hands if the Bill passed, and would insist on being paid a fair day's wage for what they considered to be a fair day's work. He was quite
    1028
    prepared to admit that if the Bill passed into law the men would still insist on having a fair day's wage, and he held that they were entitled to it. He noticed that throughout the Debate they had heard nothing from the Representatives of Cornwall and Devonshire as to the metalliferous mines of this country. It was the rule in all metalliferous mines in the world that no man should work more than eight hours a day; why was it not the rule in coal mines? On that point he would try to throw some little light. He himself was not interested to the extent of one farthing in collieries, but he was a Representative, in conjunction with his hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr, of a colliery district, and he had endeavoured to ascertain why the owners objected to the Bill before the Committee. The two grounds alleged were that it would restrict the output and that it would prevent competition with foreign producers. Well, the eight hours' limit could not restrict the output in Northumberland and Durham, where it was alleged that the men already only worked six and a-half and seven hours. But what happened in Northumberland and Durham? The boys and hauliers were sent down to arrange for the work of the day—to get the trams to the face ready for filling, and the roadways clear.
    MR. J. WILSON: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will excuse me for laughing; but this is the most amusing statement I ever heard in my life.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I may call attention to the fact that the only question raised by the Amendment is whether there should be local option or not in respect of this Bill.
    MR. PRITCHARD-MORGANsaid, he was endeavouring to give reasons why owners refused to assent to having the law made compulsory, and wished to have it left optional when he was interrupted by his hon. Friend, who apparently thought he did not know a mine from a mule, though probably he had been acquainted with mines almost as long as the hon. Gentleman. He thought it had been admitted all through the Debate that the boys in Northumberland and Durham were oftentimes engaged for 10 hours a day; and if that was the case it appeared obvious to a person of ordinary understanding

    1029
    that the boys were there for the purpose of facilitating the work of the men. What the miners of South Wales said, however, was that they desired that no one should be allowed actually to work in the mines for more than eight hours per shift. The hon. Baronet the Member for Chester-le-Street had stated as one of his grounds of objection to the Bill that in Northumberland and Durham the men would only be able to work one shift. The principal objection of his hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr, however, was that, by a limitation of the hours of labour, the double shift system would be introduced in Wales. The Representative of one colliery district, in fact, objected to having one shift, while the Representative of another objected to Slaving two.
    MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: May I explain that in South Wales the boys work shorter hours than the men, and that if you introduce a double shift you increase the hours of the boys?
    MR. PRITCHARD-MORGANreplied that he was not born in Palestine; he was born in South Wales. With regard to the question of foreign competition, he submitted that if the Bill were passed they would be exactly in statu quo. Wages on the Continent at the present time were undoubtedly lower than they were in Durham or in Wales, and foreign competition thus was and would be possible; but to say that the men of Wales were of necessity to work a larger number of hours than they ought to be called on to work, due regard being had to their health, simply because some men on the Continent were working for very low wages, was, to his mind, a poor answer to the supporters of the Bill before the House. He had been surprised on the previous day by a passage in the speech of the Member for Merthyr, in which his hon. Friend somewhat misled the Committee, though not, he was sure, intentionally, by saying that a ballot had been taken in the constituency they represented, and that the men in that locality were, by a large majority, in favour of the application to the Bill of the principle of local option. The only vote that had ever been taken in the Merthyr district was as to whether the eight hours should count as from face to face or from bank
    1030
    to bank. There was not a collier in the Merthyr or Aberdare Valleys who was opposed, so far as he knew, to the reduction of the hours of labour in the collieries of South Wales—he had never even heard the question raised. His hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr advocated in 1891 eight hours from bank to bank; then he advocated eight hours' winding——
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: Where did I advocate that in 1891?
    MR. KEIR HARDIErose 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. PRITCHARD-MORGAN,resuming, said, that his hon. Friend, after advocating eight hours' winding, advocated eight hours from face to face, and then eight hours within a radius of 100 yards from the bottom of the shaft, while now he advocated local option. He would put a case—a case, say, where men and owners had combined in objecting to the principle of the Bill. They would assume that 2,000 men were engaged in the pit, and produced 1s. per day in the value of coal more than they would in the event of the Bill becoming law. They would admit that those 2,000 men obtained an advantage of 6d. per man per day, and that the proprietor of the mine also obtained a similar sum per man per day. That advantage, in the case of the proprietor, would amount to no less than £15,000 a year; and he contended that it would be better to suffer the workman to lose his 6d. per day and the owner his £15,000 a year than to allow the men to remain in the bowels of the earth working amid the coal dust for objectionably long hours day after day and year after year. The House was continually engaged in legislation dealing with cruelty to animals and to children, and in restricting the hours of labour of women and infants, and he submitted that the time had arrived for restricting the hours of adult labour in the mines. He thought the Amendment ought not to be carried, and he trusted that the Committee would not carry it, though at a later stage he would be prepared to vote for an Amendment making the eight hours apply as from face to face.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The Committee will, I think, feel indebted to the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down for breaking the monotony of the Debate. I do not know exactly how many speeches have been addressed to us this evening, but they are a great number, and, with one exception, every speaker hits spoken in favour of the Amendment, while the promoters of the Bill have not ventured to say a single word against it. That appears to us to be rather an extraordinary method of conducting a discussion in this House, though I have no doubt that as time goes on we shall be entirely used to it. Apparently, with the new Unionism and new Radicalism, a new form of discussion has sprung up, and hon. Gentlemen who promote a Bill, having ascertained beforehand in the Lobby whether they have a majority at their back, remain obstinately silent, moving the Closure from time to time, and testing the patience of the Chairman, and in that way endeavour to ram their measures down the throats of their opponents without taking the trouble to explain them. Perhaps they are wise in that. Having to defend proposals such as this before the House, and having declared that even the slightest deviation from the proposals in the Bill is to be followed by its withdrawal, they are, perhaps, very wise to refuse to allow any discussion, any examination of details, or any criticism. I should hardly think that they will be very much obliged to my hon. Friend below me, because, although he rose to oppose the Amendment, he seemed to me to give away the whole case by the statement he made at the commencement of his speech. He said, and I entirely sympathise with him, that eight hours' good work at the face, in all the discomforts of a mine, was as much as any human being should be submitted to, and that he was prepared to alter the Bill, so that the only thing it would prevent would be work extending over a longer period than eight hours carried on at the face of the coal. Well, Sir, we are all agreed as to that. But that is not the issue between us. I have taken the trouble to look at the Returns prepared some time ago, and I find there is hardly a district in which at the present time the average of work at the face exceeds eight hours. Where eight hours is ex-
    1032
    ceeded it is only by a decimal point, and I think there would, in no part of the House, be any objection to reducing it to eight hours. But we have a much larger question than that to decide. We are obliged to consider this Hill as raising the question whether all over the United Kingdom, as soon as this Bill is passed, work in mines is to be restricted to eight hours from bank to bank for everybody employed in the mine. We know perfectly well that that will, in many cases, reduce the work at the face to seven, six, and even five hours, and of course, therefore, greatly reduce the number of hours of bonâ fide work which can be put in at the mine. Now, Sir, I wish to address myself particularly to the promoters of the Bill, and I think I am entitled to do so as a friend of their object. I would remind them that in 1891, when they were in a small minority in this House, and when the very idea of legislative interference with the hours of labour was scouted in all parts of the House, I supported them and defended the principle of their Bill and voted for the Second Reading; but at the same time I said that whenever a Bill of this sort was read a second time I should claim my right to examine its details, and to endeavour to introduce into it that elasticity without which, I am convinced, it would disappoint its promoters, and fail of its avowed aim. But I adopted the principle of your Bill. My hon. Friend below me, in his speech against the Amendment, adopted the very convenient method, which I have noticed has been adopted by gentlemen who occupy a more prominent position, of saying that the Amendment violates the principle of the measure. That is a very convenient argument, because it dispenses with argument. You need only say "the Amendment violates the principle of the Bill," and then, because the principle has been affirmed on the Second Reading, you can add "I cannot discuss an Amendment which violates this principle." Let us ascertain what is the principle of the Bill. The principle of the Bill is, I venture to say, the right of the Legislature, under certain circumstances and for good cause, to interfere with the hours of labour of adults in mines. That is the principle of the Bill. Whether that right shall be exercised is purely a question of expediency, and this Amendment is purely a question of ex-

    1033
    pediency and not a question of principle at all. It is a question of whether, granting that we have the right to interfere in any district or all districts, it is expedient to stereotype this interference over the whole country, or whether we should limit that interference to those districts which are most desirous of it, and where we may well be convinced by the evidence we have received that such interference will do little or no harm. Let us, then, look at the matter from that point of view. Is it expedient to press a measure of this kind against a small minority? I say for myself, yes, it is. It was with that view that I supported the Second Heading of the Bill. It is in that sense that I am in favour of compulsion in certain eases, where you have an individual or a few individuals, or a very small proportion of a class behaving in a cantankerous manner, and preventing something which the vast majority believe to be to their advantage. Then I hold that it is right for the State to interfere, and to give the majority the power of controlling a small minority. But does that principle go so far as to cover the case of a very large minority? I say no, and that I may explain the ground on which I base that opinion. I go to the very bottom of our representative system. What is a representative system? It is a means of learning beforehand on which side of a question force lies. Without our civilised arrangements every question must lie decided by force, and the strongest, of course, gain their way. By means of a representative system you find out which party is the stronger, and we have always been content to accept the decision of the stronger party without, resorting to physical force to determine the matter. But it will be seen at once that, although in a case whore there is a majority of two to one Providence would no doubt be on the side of the big battalions, as Napoleon said, and the majority would win; yet when yon come to a small majority it is not at all certain, if you come to force, that the majority will win. Is it contended that if you left this to be decided on the spot without legislation, without an appeal to law, in Northumberland and Durham, that the people who are in favour of this Bill would be able to carry it into effect? Clearly not. Unless you can bring the whole
    1034
    force of the country at your back to coerce the recalcitrant opponents of the Bill in Northumberland and Durham you could not possibly carry out your proposal in those countries. And even if you take the whole of the country there is undoubtedly a very large minority opposed to the Bill. If you take the miners in the North at 120,000 you must add a considerable number for those in South Wales and other districts, and my hon. Friend will admit that, although the Representative Bodies are on one side, there are a great number of individuals in places like the Midlands who are entirely opposed to this legislation. You have over the whole country a very considerable minority entirely opposed to this legislation. I do not say that that is a reason against the legislation—if I thought it was I should have voted against the Second Reading—but I do say that that is a reason why my hon. Friends should march cautiously. It is a reason why they should make some concession, and not stand in the irreconcilable attitude they have taken up. What is the objection that is taken to the Bill by this large minority? It is that the lessening of the hours that would take place in certain districts, especially in regard to the labour of boys in Northumberland and Durham, would very materially lessen the output of coal; that the result of that would be to raise prices; that that would lessen the demand for labour and the opportunities of the people for obtaining occupation and probably the amount of the wages they would receive. That is the statement which is made as to the probable result of this legislation in those districts, and it will be observed that everybody would suffer. The employer would suffer, no doubt. If he is making any profit he would have to submit to a sacrifice of those profits. The workman would have to submit to less wages and, above all, to a decrease in the amount of employment open to him, and the public probably would have to suffer, because the price of the article would be raised as far as it could be without materially affecting the demand. I do not want, myself, to lay too much stress on this argument. I pointed out on the Second Reading of the Bill that people are rather apt to take a too gloomy view of the probable result of changes of this kind; that the reduction

    1035
    in the output might not be so large as was feared; and that in many trades a reduction of hours had not led to a reduction of output. But then I venture to say that if that should be the result I do not think that the main object of the promoters of this Bill would be gained, because I cannot help thinking that one of their objects is to secure a reduction in the output—that is to say, that a certain number of men shall produce less coal than they do at present—and to secure that if the output is to be maintained it shall be by the employment of a larger number of men. Still, I admit that there may be some compensation in the case of a change of this kind, and it may be found that more work will be done per hour than is done at present. The hon. Member for the Ince Division said, "Oh, our ancestors heard the same story over 200 years ago, and you have cried 'Wolf' so often that we do not heed you when you call 'Wolf' now." I venture to say that attitude on the part of an influential representative of the working classes is a very dangerous attitude at the present time. My hon. Friend must see there is a point beyond which you cannot increase prices. It is an open question, which should be considered with the utmost care, whether you have reached that point in connection with the coal trade. Do not let us shut our ears to arguments which may be used in the matter. If we met every contention with the same blank denial and refusal to entertain it our commercial supremacy would sooner or later disappear. I say, speaking generally, and dealing only with the old-established, ordinary, and old-fashioned businesses of the country, which have no monopoly, and which hold no supremacy because of the possession of an invention, or something of that kind, that the margin of profit has at the present moment almost entirely disappeared. Many of them are being carried on at a loss; and when my hon. Friend says we have heard these jeremiads often before, and nothing has resulted, he is mistaken, for something has resulted, and whether our warnings were correct or not, it is certain that the trade of this country is worse than it used to be. The hon. Gentleman may be right in saying that the working classes have not suffered to any great extent; their wages are higher and better, and their work is less exhausting
    1036
    than it was 20 years ago; but at the same time the average percentage of profit obtained by the capitalist has been very materially reduced. That is a change which I am not sorry to have seen accomplished, only there must be a limit. Take the case of a person who has invested £100,000 in a mill and machinery, who finds he is no longer making a profit. He cannot close his mill at once; that would be a loss of capital; so he goes on working, even at a loss, hoping for an improvement, until the whole of his free capital has disappeared, and it is not, in fact, until he is bankrupt that the mill is closed and the workpeople go to join the ranks of the unemployed. I would urge the Committee not to treat this as a purely illusory danger, for it is a real danger which we ought always to have in view. When a Vast change of this kind is proposed I think it behoves those who propose it to be certain of each step as they take it, to follow the ancient ways of Liberalism, and to be satisfied with half a loaf rather than have no bread, and to feel, at least, that the change is unlikely to do more harm than good. Experience has shown that gradual progress is infinitely safer for the country and infinitely better for the projects of reform we wish to promote, and I would entreat my hon. Friend, as one who is friendly to this movement, to consider whether he will not gain more by taking to-day a Bill which he can have at this moment, and which can be passed into law during the present Session, than he will by refusing every Amendment and insisting upon the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill? It appears to me that if my hon. Friend insists upon the Bill in its present form and at this period of the Session, he has not the ghost of a chance of passing it this year. Does my hon. Friend believe he will be able to pass the Bill in its present form during this Session? I do not know what the men of Northumberland and Durham are, but I know if they were Irishmen this Bill would take a month to pass. On the other hand, if he would allow this amendment to be made, without necessarily admitting the grounds or reasoning upon which it is urged upon him, reserving to himself the right to demand more when the opportunity comes, I believe he would secure a very useful

    1037
    Bill, oven at the end of this exhausting Session, and he would gain for all of us a vast amount of useful experience, which would enable us with absolute certainty to proceed further, or with equally absolute certainty to retrace our steps. What argument has been offered to us which would prevent them from adopting this course? There are three arguments. In the first place, there is the argument of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, which is the philanthropic argument, and which amounts to this—that my hon. Friends behind mo from the North are such inconsiderate fathers, and their sons have to work such long hours, that it is absolutely necessary that he from Staffordshire should step in and defend the health and material welfare of their children. I do not think we are at all justified in taking such an unfavourable view of the character of our Northern friends, and that, at any rate, is not such a serious argument as to be sufficient to induce us to make such a change as this. When we were asked to interfere in the case of the Factory Acts, the Coal Mines Regulation Acts, and other Acts, there was always shown a tremendous case of cruelty, indifference, and neglect affecting large numbers of the population which justified the interference of the Legislature, but there is nothing of the sort here. The boys in the North were strong and healthy, and he should think they would be the first to resent interference. The second argument is that if you pass this Bill with the local option clause, you will be giving an undue advantage to the districts which will vote themselves out of the Bill. In the first place, I wish to say I do not think that is true. Whatever advantages, if they are advantages, these districts will have after the Bill has passed, they have now, and the real object of gentlemen who hold this argument is not to prevent them from getting the advantages which they have got now, but to take away the advantages which they have got. Let me point out how that arises. You have extraordinary differences in the conditions of trade. You have mines in which the coal is much more expensive to win than it is in others, or mines which are far from markets, and which would not be able to lie worked if the people had not
    1038
    in some way or other overcome the natural disadvantages. It is these methods which they have adopted for overcoming the natural disadvantages and putting them on equal terms with other districts, that you will take away from thorn. It is the most remarkable thing to notice how, in the course of these two days' Debate, the whole argument has been transformed from the argument on the Second Reading of the Bill. On the Second Reading it was to our common humanity that the promoters of the Bill made an appeal; it was said that men were working too hard and too long at a disagreeable and dangerous employment, and that therefore there should be some interference. But not one word, except from the Member for Merthyr, have we heard about the argument addressed to our humanity. What we have been listening to is ignoble strife and competition between different coalowners on the one side and coalowners on the other, between different districts and between individual mines, and I do say it is a most dangerous precedent if this House is going to interfere with a question of commercial competition, and is going to lay its strong hand on one set of tradesmen and take it away from another set of tradesmen. We have been looking with regret on the spectacle which has been presented to us by the Houses of the Legislature in America, where we have seen Senators and Representatives struggling for their personal interests or the personal interests of those whom they represent, without the least regard for the good of the nation. Are we going to follow that evil example, and are we going to throw ourselves into what has been shown by the whole course of the Debate to be a mere struggle between rival commercial and pecuniary interests in this country? Are we going to have to throw a balance into the one side or the other? No, Sir; on that ground, if on that alone, I would say we ought to press for this local option in order that these districts may fight it out themselves without asking the House to give a preference to one side or the other. There is a third reason which has not been alluded to in the course of this Debate, and which, I think, must weigh very materially with the Member for the Ince Division and other hon. Members in inducing them to reject anything in the

    1039
    form of a compromise, and that is the idea that by forcing a stereotyped eight hours throughout the country they will reduce the output, and that, as a result, either prices will go up and wages will be raised, or, if the output is to be maintained, a larger number of persons will find employment. I ask how on earth it can be expected that this result will be attained? Does the hon. Gentleman think he can fix the price of a product like coal? Can he altogether evade the effect of competition? Yet they would have us believe that they can force up the price. We have heard a great deal about competition. We have heard about foreign competition and foreign coal. No one, however, has considered it necessary to speak much about it during this Debate except to say that it was not so bad as it was expected to be. Surely, however, if you are going to increase the price of home coal it is clear that you will increase the demand for foreign coal, and that every ton of foreign coal sold means that one ton less of English coal sold, and so many more people out of employment. The commonest laws of economics cannot be voided for the benefit of my hon. Friends. But there is another point to be considered. Suppose you were dealing with the home trade, and that the foreign trade was not to be counted at all. In other words, suppose you could draw a circle excluding all foreign coal, then, no doubt, you could raise the price of coal. But, I ask, for how long? Surely you would keep the price up only so long as the consumers could afford to pay the increased price. But, again I ask, is the condition of trade throughout the country such that it could afford to pay an increase for the coal that it necessarily must consume? I am thinking especially now of the vast ironworks, and I say it is absolutely impossible for them, and also for many other great industries throughout the length and breadth of the land, to hold their own against foreign competition if the price of coal is to be increased. What would follow? These great centres of consumption would be closed. How then, in the long run, is this increase in the price going to benefit anybody? My view is that what the hon. Gentleman proposes to do—that is, to lessen the output and increase wages—is mathematically impossible. But I
    1040
    know that it is of no use to argue with those who hold these views. You cannot convince a man who thinks he can square the circle or make water run up hill. I do not press my opinion with any hope of bringing conviction; but I put it that supposing you are right and I am wrong, and supposing that good results would follow from your plan, still I would ask you why should not you, as you cannot get these results this year, consent to a compromise? You can gain nothing under the Bill this year, and if you agree to a compromise, we shall have a year's experience upon which to decide what is the best course for us to adopt in the future. The new method of discussing important matters seems to me, however, to render any appeal of this kind useless. I wonder how the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnard Castle (Sir J. W. Pease) and the hon. Member for Durham (Sir J. Joicey) like this state of things now that it is to be applied to themselves? They were very ready to Closure us on a former occasion after two days' discussion in Committee on an important Bill, and tonight we shall have been two days discussing this Bill, and I suppose to-morrow that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he is prepared to mete out equal justice to his friends as well as his opponents, will come forward again and stop further discussion by his guillotine method. I should like to know how those hon. Gentlemen will vote on that occasion? When my hon. Friend behind me, the Member for Mid Durham (Mr. J. Wilson) wanted, by the vote of this House, to coerce no less than 500,000 persons by the provisions of the Employers' Liability Bill, the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnard Castle strongly approved of the guillotine being applied on that occasion. It strikes me that some of these chickens are coming home to roost. I sincerely hope the lesson will not be altogether lost on some of my hon. Friends. I do not think I can do more than to once more ask those who have the conduct of this Bill whether they will not yield to circumstances, and take what they can instead of losing everything by claiming too much? If they will not do that I confess that the best course this House can take, and that another House can take, if they take my advice, which I do not suppose they will

    1041
    —I say, if a majority in this House is determined to ram the measure down our throats, the best thing is to allow them to do it in the crudest possible form, because the sharper the lesson and the deeper the wound, the sooner shall we come back again to the policy of reason and common sense.
    SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, although, no doubt, the Commttee would be anxious to divide, yet some reply would be expected from the promoters of the Bill to the powerful speech to which the Committee had just listened. His right hon. Friend began his speech by asking whether or not any serious Amendment was to be accepted, and whether this Amendment and other Amendments on the Paper would be opposed; and he seemed to say that this Amendment represented his views. There was a slip made by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment yesterday in referring in terms of commendation to another Amendment which appeared on the Paper. The colleague of the hon. Member who made this Motion, and to whose speech the right hon. Gentleman alluded, said he should support another Amendment, which was one to which they would come later, and which placed a point of 100 yards from the shaft as that from which the eight-hours day should be taken. His right hon. Friend had stated that throe arguments had been used in support of this Amendment, and he had traversed two out of the three at considerable length. He would first dispose of the argument of colliery against colliery, and one part of the country against another part of the country. They thought, without putting it too high, that there would undoubtedly be a considerable amount of inconvenience and some cost in all parts of the country in bringing the new system into effect. But changes of this kind had been imposed upon the coalowners of this country on former occasions, and they had been resisted, and resisted in very strong language—in 1872, when there were prophecies of the ruin of the industry, and again in 1887. They admitted that there would be cost and trouble, and they said it was unfair that the masters of Staffordshire and Lancashire and the Bristol districts, where the hours were long and the mode of working very slow—they said
    1042
    it would be unfair to put them to all this inconvenience when their rivals and competitors in trade were not inconvenienced in the same way. That argument was met by saying they were not competitors in trade. He could not admit that for a moment. The seaborne' trade of Northumberland and Durham was very large, but a very large proportion of that coal arrived in London, and came into direct competition with the coal produced in Federation districts. It was owing to the high rates of the Railway Companies that this seaborne coal got the advantage. He laid much more stress upon the philanthropic argument of the right hon. Gentleman. He did not see how it would be possible for any of them who were concerned in promoting this Bill, and who had been supporting it for years past, without sacrificing every principle and argument, to give up the case of the Northumberland and Durham boys. It was said they should not express more concern for the boys in this district than did their fathers. As to carrying this change against the wishes of the great minority, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have forgotten his own arguments about minorities on former occasions. He admitted that it would be a serious thing, even in the name of philanthropy, to coerce a large minority. But he had exaggerated the matter. With regard to Northumberland and Durham, his hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Sir J. Joicey) had referred to 120,000 men, but the last ballot taken on the subject showed that the majority was only 36,000.
    SIR J. JOICEYsaid, he had spoken of 120,000 men as being connected with the mines, and not as being miners.
    SIR C. W. DILKEwent on to say that very large sections of Federation districts had been balloted upon this Bill, and in those sections there had been virtually no minority; whilst, on the other hand, in Northumberland and Durham the ballot showed 36,000 against the Bill and 14,000 or 15,000 in favour of it.
    SIR J. PEASE: Out of 72,000 who were capable of voting.
    SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, his point was that hon. Members ought not to quote 120,000 as being against the Bill when, as a matter of fact, only 36,000 voted against it. Then there was the

    1043
    question of the boys. The men in the North worked sometimes as little as five and a half hours, and never more than seven hours, as far as lie had been able to ascertain, and he had been in pits both in Northumberland and Durham.
    MR. J. WILSON: What pit was the right hon. Gentleman down in Durham?
    SIR C. W. DILKE: I will give my hon. Friend the names privately. In connection with this question I went down two pits in Northumberland and five or six in Durham.
    MR. FENWICK: Which were they?
    SIR C.W. DILKEsaid, his hon. Friend surely did not doubt his word upon the subject. He found that the men worked from 5½ hours to 6½ or 7 hours, while the boys were below ground 10 hours, and worked from 9 to 9½ hours. He understood that the case of the hand-putters was given up by his hon. Friends, who did not contend that the state of things with regard to them was defensible. There were very few of these handputters now, and they were confined to a few old-fashioned pits. The case of these handputters, however, was very hard. They worked naked, and their work was very hard.
    MR. J. WILSON: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not make us out to be greater barbarians than we are by saying that we work naked.
    SIR G. W. DILKE: I saw men working naked with my own eyes. I admit that this work is confined to old-fashioned pits.
    MR. J. WILSON: Will you name the pit where they work naked?
    SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, Walker, near Newcastle, was a hot pit and an old fashioned pit. What had been ignored throughout the Debate was that the hours of the boys had been regulated by Statute. Many of the masters had complained of the introduction of the 54-hours week for the boys, but that provision was introduced, and the result was that they were not able to employ their boys now for more than 54 hours a week. One week in the fortnight the boys worked only 50 hours, but in the other week there had to be an extra shift of boys in order to take the
    1044
    places of the boys who otherwise would have to work overtime. The work of the boys was hard and dangerous, and when it was said that they were merely in charge of trains it must be remembered that in the course of their occupation they had to lift enormously heavy weights, and they developed a lifting capacity which no man could keep up to.
    MR. J. WILSON: They are all Sandows.
    SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, the House had been told over and over again that eight hours were quite long enough to be below ground. These boys were 10 hours below ground, and they did work which was very severe indeed. His hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. J. Wilson) and other supporters of the Amendment were committed to the view that this was a state of things which ought not to continue, and which it was the object of the Miners' Association in Durham to bring to a close. They offered no suggestion, however, as to how it was to be brought to a close, and this was why he (Sir C. Dilke) said it was impossible for the supporters of the Bill to avoid pressing the philanthropic argument.
    MR. WOOTTON ISAACSONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had anything to say about the case of the boys in South Wales?
    SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, he had nothing to say about them. He had dismissed the South Wales case by saying he was certain that the South Wales Members meant to support, not this Amendment, but another Amendment on the Paper. He knew that the feeling in South Wales, as far as there was a feeling there against this Bill, was a feeling against the eight hours bank-to-bank provision, and not against legislative interference. His hon. Friend the Member for the Wansbeck Division (Mr. Fenwick) had in 1887 spoken of work done by women on the pit bank of a very similar character to that done by the boys at the bottom of the pit as being very arduous. He knew that his hon. Friends the Members for Wansbeck and Morpeth (Mr. Burt) felt very strongly about the case of the boys. They knew that the boys did not get a fair chance, and that the present state of things ought to be brought to an end. The Members for Chester-le-Street (Sir

    1045
    J. Joicey) and Barnard Castle (Sir J. Pease) said there was a difficulty in making any change in Northumberland and Durham. The witnesses from Northumberland and Durham before the Labour Commission never brought out the fact mentioned that evening, that there were If collieries working in Durham where a system that would easily adapt itself to this Bill was in force.
    MR. J. A. PEASE: The Labour Commission was quite aware of the fact, as they sent an inquiry both to owners and men.
    SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, that was afterwards, and he thought it was in consequence of a letter from himself to the Labour Commission that the inquiry was made. There was not a word about it in Mr. Patterson's evidence, nor was any evidence given from Durham on the subject. All that was said was that the system proposed was not workable, and yet there were If collieries actually working on it—three shifts of men and two shifts of boys. The hon. Member for the Tyneside Division (Mr. J. A. Pease) had made a mistake in quoting the Labour Commission with regard to the neutrality of the Federation districts on this question. He had quoted an analysis of the votes of the Trades Congress at a meeting at Belfast. That analysis ought never to have been issued by the Labour Commission. The vote was taken at a very empty Congress without any debate, and, as a matter of fact, every single one of the delegates who were described by the Labour Commission as neutral were sent to the Congress to vote in favour of the resolution. As to the arguments about foreign competition, such competition was of entirely different kinds. As to the competition of France and Belgium, the mines in those countries were extremely deep, and we had nothing to fear from such competition, whilst in Germany the mines were far from the sea, and consequently the competition was not serious. As a matter of fact, the contracts for coals required for the German Army were now being made in this country. There was, however, quite a different kind of competition—that of Tonkin, Japan, New Zealand, India, and America in steam coal. Nothing that could be done in Great Britain could affect the development of such coalfields as these. They lay, many of
    1046
    them, on the route of trade, especially the Japan and Tonkin fields. Whatever was done here, those fields would be developed, and undoubtedly in course of time they would supply stations like Singapore even more largely than they did at present. It had been said that the promoters of the Bill intended to treat all alike—the strong and the weak, the old and the young, the man with 11 children and the bachelor. Well, were men at present allowed to choose their hours of work, and to work as long as they pleased? Certainly not; they were absolutely at the discretion of those who fixed the hours of the pit. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Sir J. Joicey) had said that under the proposed new system the old men would not be able to continue at work, but he had known cases in which old men had not been allowed to continue at work because of that very county average to which allusion had been made.
    SIR J. JOICEYsaid, there were exceptions.
    SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, he was very glad to hear it, and he hoped they were small exceptions. To conclude, he thought local option might be an excellent thing in such cases as shop hours, but was not applicable to a Bill of this kind. In his opinion, it would be better to risk the loss of the Bill for a year or two than to accept the Amendment now before the Committee. The principle of this Bill was that of a uniform eight hours all over the country. The question of what the eight hours meant was a question not of principle, but of detail. He should be willing to accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr (Mr. D. A. Thomas), although he was not favourable to it, rather than lose the Bill; but he thought it would be better to drop the Bill than to accept the Amendment now before the Committee.
    MR. FENWICKrose to continue the discussion, but.
    Mr. WOODSrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 120; Noes 98.—(Division List, No. 231.)
    Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 112; Noes 107.—(Division List, No. 232.)
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, Mr. Chairman, that you do now report Progress. I do so in order that we should hear a statement from the promoters of this Bill as to what they intend to do.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. J. Chamberlain)
    MR. ROBY: I beg to move that you do report Progress.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Motion was moved by my right hon. Friend for the purpose of extracting from the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill a statement, and all he has done is to make a Motion in his own name, which he is not competent to do. He has given no information on the subject in reference to which the Motion was moved.
    SIR C. W. DILKE: It has been stated frequently in the course of the Debate that it would be impossible to proceed with the Bill in these circumstances.
    Motion agreed to.
    Committee report Progress.
    House resumed.
    MR. ROBY: I beg to propose that the Bill be put down for to-morrow, with a view of then withdrawing it.
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS.

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

  THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. S. SMITH*MR. S. SMITH (Flintshire) moved the following Amendment:—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, a full and independent Parliamentary inquiry should take place into the condition and wants of the
    1048
    Indian people, and their ability to bear their existing financial burdens; the nature of the Revenue system and the possibility of reductions in the expenditure; also the financial relations between India and the United Kingdom, and generally the system of Government in India."
    He assured the House that he moved this Resolution with very great pleasure. He had taken a great interest in the people of India ever since he first visited that country more than 30 years ago, and his sympathy was very much increased by a late visit paid for political and social purposes. He did not move this Resolution, nor did his friends support it, in any spirit of antagonism to the British Government in India. Their desire was not to attack British rule there, but to improve it. They were all deeply sensible that no other form of Government was possible in India at the present time except the strong Government of Great Britain; and he believed he was expressing the opinion of all the educated people of India when he said there was a unanimous feeling that in the present state of Indian affairs the British rule should be predominant. But there was no doubt that there was a feeling of deep discontent with the working of this Government in many directions; and to these he wished to call the attention of the House. He would, in the first place, say that the Government of India was a pure bureaucracy. It was the only example in the whole world at the present time of the Government of a great country entirely by a bureaucracy. They might imagine what it would be like if the Government of the United Kingdom was in the hands of permanent officials without the direction of Parliament and without the control of a Ministry. The Secretary of State for India, who was thoroughly acquainted with official life, could form for himself a pretty good idea of what the Government of this country would be in the course of 100 years if it were entirely under the control of permanent officials. He held that the system of bureaucracy was in itself most imperfect. It necessarily produced a whole class of abuses peculiar to itself. The official classes looked upon themselves as a privileged class. They were drawn together by an esprit de corps. The tendency of all bureaucracies was to condone the faults of their members, and to whitewash the

    1049
    black sheep that might turn up amongst thorn; for in all bodies of men they had a certain number of black sheep. He willingly admitted that the British Indian officials were for the most part men of singular ability, and, as a rule, men of perfect integrity; yet he must sorrowfully admit that in late years there had been some very notable eases of black sheep among that bureaucracy. He might mention the notorious Crawford case in Bombay some few years ago. Wherever people were governed by a bureaucracy the tendency was for the officials to hold together, to form a sort of mutual admiration society, and to explain away and condone as much as they could the faults of each other. Now this system of bureaucracy was only possible under British rule in India when first established. The growth of Indian education and habits, of political thought, made this system of government more difficult than it was 50 years ago. The machine worked with increasing friction, and he feared it was beyond doubt there was far more discontent in India than there used to be. Under the old East India Company there used to be a Parliamentary inquiry every 20 years, but there had been none since the assumption of government by the Crown nearly 40 years ago. They held that the hour was ripe for such an inquiry, and it was promised in this House several years ago (1886) by the Government of the day. He should like to allude briefly to the points to which the inquiry should be directed. The main complaint of the Indian people was that our system of government was too expensive for a very poor country. He held that they were right. They did not comprehend the excessive poverty and the extremely small tax-paying power of that country. The vast majority of the people could only keep body and soul together; nine-tenths of the population were poor peasants just subsisting on patches of land of five acres or less, and they were never far removed from famine. A drought, or failure of crops, might at any time sweep away millions of the people. The average income of the population was £2 per head against £36, per head in England. One penny in the £1 of Income Tax produced over £2,000,000 sterling in the United Kingdom, and in India less than £200,000, though levied on six times as
    1050
    many people—that was to say, the average wealth of India liable to Income Tax was 1–60th of the amount available here on equal areas of population. Now our official system was very expensive; the higher posts were almost entirely filled by Europeans with high salaries. He did not say they were too high, looking at the difficulties and drawbacks of a tropical climate, but they appeared to the natives of India very high. To a native 100 rupees per month meant wealth, but our high officials drew salaries of 3,000 to 4,000 rupees per mouth, and the Indian people naturally thought that they could replace them by much cheaper agency. Then the military expenses were enormous, and constantly increasing. This was the abyss that swallowed up the resources of India. In 10 years they had risen from 18,000,000 to 24,000,000 of tens of rupees. The natives of India bitterly complained of the endless frontier wars, and of the tendency to push the outposts of the Empire further and further; above all, they objected to the policy on the North-West Frontier; they considered we wore going much too far from our natural base. These military railways on the frontier of Afghanistan had swallowed up an enormous amount of money. The Indian accounts disguised the real expenditure. Some years ago he tried to make out the cost of the defensive works on the North-West Frontier, and reckoned it at £15,000,000 at least; probably it was much more now. It is extremely doubtful whether we were not on the wrong track altogether; we kept up constant friction with the frontier tribes, and made ourselves liable to endless frontier wars. Then the natives justly complain of our excessive pension list. It had grown to £4,600,000, including furlough allowances, equal to about 8,000,000 of tens of rupees—a prodigious draft on so poor a country as India. They also complained that our method of governing India caused an enormous balance to be annually due to this country. The Government had to pay some £16,000,000 or £17,000,000 annually in gold in this country as interest on debt for Army stores, pensions, &c, and, besides this, a large amount was remitted home by merchants for interest on capital invested in India, and for payments by officials for the support of their families in this country, the general result being

    1051
    that whereas Indian exports last year reached 110,000,000 of tens of rupees she only received back in imports 95,000,000 of tens of rupees, including treasure. The balance remained in this country as payment of debt. The people of India considered that this represented a tribute. It was not so in reality, for much of it was payment for value received, such as interest on the construction of the railways. Still there was a sufficient element of truth init to cause real dissatisfaction in India. The natives of India likewise look with alarm on the increasing embarrassment of the finances of India, and dreaded the infliction of fresh taxation. The last three years had shown annual deficits amounting altogether to 3,000,000 of tens of rupees, owing to the heavy fall of exchange. This current year would, however, show a large further deficit, for exchange was already more than 1d. below the rate taken in the Financial Statement for 1894–5. The Secretary of State might not unlikely have a deficit of 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 of tens of rupees this coming year. He submitted to the House that if they wished to make the people of India loyal to the British Crown and Government, there was one effectual way, and that was to give them perpetual fixed rent. They would then be the most loyal population in the world. They would be induced to put all their powers into improving the soil, and particularly in sinking wells. They were now afraid that even if they put a new door or a new window to a house they would have to pay a few more rupees' rent. There was also a system of bribery and corruption by the under officials of the Government. He was repeatedly informed in India that it was always a ease of so many rupees to be paid to an under officer, and unless it was paid there was a huge over-assessment, and, as a matter of fact, everyone had to pay in order to have his assessment made at a proper rate. If the Secretary for India could do anything to prevent this he would do a good deal to ensure the loyalty of the Indians. If he was not mistaken it was Lord Halifax, when Secretary for India, who proposed to consider settlement of land perpetual. He passed to another class of grievances which was felt throughout India—namely, the tendency of the Administration to stimulate the use of alcoholic drugs. Three years
    1052
    ago a very strong condemnation was passed by this House on the opium revenue. The Government of India felt themselves constrained to issue an order closing the opium smoking dens in India. But these dens which had been officially closed were unofficially opened. They were not opened by the Government, but by the same class of men who had owned them before, and who by changing their name were allowed practically unchallenged to open these unlicensed places for this abominable traffic. These opium clubs had been exposed by a band of earnest and determined men who resolved to bring to the light of day the abominations practised in connection with them. They visited these illicit clubs and exposed the scenes they witnessed in The Bombay Guardian. They condemned the opium department for permitting this infraction of the law, and they stigmatised by name the officer who, in their opinion, was bound to put the law in force. This officer prosecuted them for defamation of character, and won his case before a Lower Court in Bombay. Four of these missionaries were condemned to a fine or in default to a month's imprisonment. They refused to pay the fine, as most of it went to the inculpated official, and so they suffered a month's imprisonment. He did not say the sentence was technically wrong, but claimed that they were in reality right, and did a public service by exposing these illicit clubs. These incidents showed, he feared, that the Indian administration was out of touch with the best moral feeling of this country and India. It was indeed pushed on by an unfortunate need of the Revenue to adopt a policy it would otherwise avoid. A far more economical administration of India must be adopted if they were to avoid increasing unpopularity and scandal in the government of that country. He thought he had made out a case for inquiry. He admitted that the language of his Resolution was strong, but he would engage to modify it if the Government would concede the substance. He would omit the last words about the Government of India, which were too wide. He believed that, looking to the state of opinion in India, this Government could not do a wiser thing than promise inquiry. Public opinion there was sore at the rejection of the Resolution of this House last year in favour of

    1053
    simultaneous examinations. The adoption of this Resolution would soothe it and restore faith in the justice of this country. The Indian people had touching faith in the justice and impartiality of the British people; they believed if they could bring their grievances before this august tribunal they would be sure of redress. He begged the Secretary of State not to disappoint this expectation of countless millions of their fellow-subjects; they had no Parliament of their own; they made their mute appeal to this mother of Parliaments. He begged the House not to reject it.
    MR. NAOROJIsaid, he undertook now to second this Resolution, and before going into the subject of the different parts of which it consisted he would say a few preliminary words. The Government of India distinctly admitted and knew very well that the educated people of India were thoroughly loyal. The hon. Member for Kingston (Sir R. Temple) had stated that the state of the country and of the people often invited or demanded criticism on the part, of the natives. It was in every way desirable that their sentiments and opinions should be made known to the ruling classes, and such outspoken frankness should never be mistaken for disloyalty or disaffection. Nothing was nearer to his (Mr. Naoroji's) mind than to make the fullest acknowledgment of all the good that had been done by the connection of the British people with India. They had no complaint against the British people and Parliament. They had from them everything they could desire. It was against the system adopted by the British Indian authorities in the last century and maintained up till now, though much modified, that they protested. The first point in the Motion was the condition of the people of India. In order to understand fully the present condition of the people of India, it was necessary to have a sort of sketch of the past, and he would give it as briefly as possible. In the last century the Administration was everything that should not be desired. He would give a few extracts from letters of the Court of Directors and the Bengal Government. In one of the letters the Directors said (8th of February, 1764)—
    "Your deliberations on the inland trade have aid open to us a scene of most cruel oppression;
    1054
    the poor of the country, who used always to deal in salt, beetlenut, and tobacco, are now deprived of their daily bread by the trade of the Europeans."
    Lord Clive wrote (17th of April, 1765)—
    "The confusion we behold, what does it arise from?—rapacity and luxury, the unwarrantable desire of many to acquire in an instant what only a few can or ought to possess."
    Another letter of Lord Clive to the Court of Directors said (30th of September, 1765)—
    "It is no wonder that the lust of riches should readily embrace the proffered means of its gratification, or that the instruments of your power should avail themselves of their authority and proceed even to extortion in those cases where simple corruption could not keep pace with their rapacity. Examples of this sort set by superiors could not fail of being followed in a proportionate degree by inferiors; the evil was contagious, and spread among the civil and military down to the writer, the ensign, and the free merchant."
    He would read one more extract from a letter of the Court of Directors (17th of May, 1766)—
    "We must add that we think the vast fortunes acquired in the inland trade have been obtained by a scene of the most tyrannic and oppressive conduct that ever was known in any age or country."
    Macaulay had summed up—
    "A war of Bengalees against Englishmen was like a war of sheep against wolves, of men against demons.… The business of a servant of the Company was I simply to wring out of the natives a hundred or two hundred thousand pounds as speedily as possible."
    Such was the character of the Government and the Administration in the last century; when all this was disclosed by the Committee of 1772 of course a change was made, and a change for the better. He would now give the opinion of Anglo-Indian and English statesmen, and the House would observe that he did not say a single word as to what the Italians themselves said. He put his case before the House in the words of Anglo-Indian and English statesmen alone; some of them had expressed great indignation with usual British feeling against wrong-doing, others had expressed themselves much more moderately. Sir John Shore was the first person who gave a clear prophetic forecast of the character of this system and its effects as early as 1787. He then said (Ret. 377 of 1812)—
    "Whatever allowance we may make for the increased industry of the subjects of the State, owing to the enhanced demand for the produce of it (supposing the demand to be enhanced),

    1055
    there is reason to conclude that the benefits are more than counterbalanced by evils inseparable from the system of a remote foreign dominion."
    The words were true to the present day. In 1790 Lord Cornwallis said, in a Minute, that the heavy drain of wealth by the Company, with the addition of remittances of private fortunes, was severely felt in the languor thrown upon the cultivation and commerce of the country. In 1823 Sir Thomas Munro pointed out that were Britain subjugated by a foreign Power, and the people excluded from the government of their country, all their knowledge and all their literature, sacred and profane, would not save them from becoming in a generation or two a low-minded, deceitful, and dishonest race. Ludlow, in his British India, said—
    "As respects the general condition of the country, let us first recollect what Sir Thomas Munro wrote years ago, 'that even if we could be secured against every internal commotion and could retain the country quietly in subjection, he doubted much if the condition of the people would be better than under the Native Princes'; that the inhabitants of the British Provinces were 'certainly the most abject race in India'; that the consequences of the conquest of India by the British arms, would be in place of raising to debase the whole people."
    Macaulay, in introducing the clause of our equality with all British subjects, our first Charter of our emancipation in the Bill of 1833, said in his famous and statesmanlike speech—
    "That would, indeed, be a doting wisdom which, in order that India may remain a dependency…which would keep a hundred millions of men from being our customers in order that they might continue to be our slaves."
    And, to illustrate the character of the existing system, he said—
    "It was, as Bernier tells us, the practice of the miserable tyrants whom he found in India, when they dreaded the capacity and spirit of some distinguished subject, and yet could not venture to murder him, to administer to him a daily dose of the pousta, a preparation of opium, the effect of which was in a few months to destroy all the bodily and mental powers of the wretch who was drugged with it, and to turn him into a helpless idiot. This detestable artifice, more horrible than assassination itself, was worthy of those who employed it. It is no model for the English nation. We shall never consent to administer the pousta to a whole community—to stupefy and paralyse a great people whom God has committed to our charge—tor the wretched purpose of rendering them more amenable to our control."
    In a speech (19th of February, 1844) he said—
    "Of all forms of tyranny I believe that the worst is that of a nation over a nation."
    1056
    Lord Lansdowne, in introducing the same clause of the Bill of 1833 into the House of Lords, pointed out that he should be taking a very narrow view of this question, and one utterly inadequate to the great importance of the subject, which involved in it the happiness or misery of 100,000,000 of human beings, were he not to call the attention of their Lordships to the bearing which this question, and to the influence which this arrangement must exercise upon the future destinies of that vast mass of people. With such high sense of statesmanship and responsibility did Lord Lansdowne of 1833 break our chains. The Indian authorities, however, never allowed those broken chains to fall from our body, and the grandson—the Lord Lansdowne of 1893—now rivetted back those chains upon us. Look upon this picture and upon that! And the Indians were now just the same British slaves, instead of British subjects, as they were before their emancipation in 1833. Mr. Montgomery Martin, after examining the records of a survey of the condition of the people of some Provinces of Bengal or Behar, which had been made for nine years from 1807–1816, concluded—
    "It is impossible to avoid remarking two facts as peculiarly striking: First, the richness of the country surveyed; and, second, the poverty of its inhabitants."
    He gave the reason for these striking facts. He said—
    "The annual drain of £3,000,000 on British India has amounted in 30 years at 12 per cent, (the usual Indian rate) compound interest to the enormous sum of £723,000,000 sterling. So constant and accumulating a drain, even in England, would soon impoverish her. How severe, then, must be its effects in India where the wage of a labourer is from 2d. to 3d. a day."
    The drain at present was seven times, if not 10 times, as much. Mr. Frederick Shore, of the Bengal Civil Service, said, in 1837—
    "But the halcyon days of India are over. She has been drained of a large proportion of the wealth she once possessed, and her energies have been cramped by a sordid system of misrule to which the interests of millions have been sacrificed for the benefit of the few. The fundamental principle of the English had been to make the whole Indian nation subservient in every possible way to the interests and benefits of themselves."
    And he summarised thus—
    "The summary was that the British Indian Government had been practically one of the most extortionate and oppressive that ever existed in India. Some acknowledged this,

    1057
    and observed that it was the unavoidable result of a foreign yoke. That this was correct regarding a Government conducted on the principles which had hitherto actuated us was too lamentably true, but, had the welfare of the people been our object, a very different course would have been adopted, and very different results would have followed. For again and again I repeat that there was nothing in the circumstance itself of our being foreigners of different colour and faith that should occasion the people to hate us. We might thank ourselves for having made their feelings towards us what they were. Had we acted on a more liberal plan we should have fixed our authority on a much more solid foundation."
    After giving some more similar authorities, Sir R. Temple and others, the hon. Gentleman proceeded: Mr. Bright, speaking in the House of Commons in 1858, said—
    "We must in future have India governed, not for a handful of Englishmen, not for that Civil Service whose praises are so constantly sounded in this House. You may govern India, if you like, for the good of England, but the good of England must come through the channels of the good of India. There are but two modes of gaining anything by our connection with India—the one is by plundering the people of India, and the other by trading with them. I prefer to do it by trading with them. But in order that England may become rich by trading with India, India itself must become rich."
    Sir George Wingate, with his intimate acquaintance with the condition of the people of India, as the introducer of the Bombay land survey system, pointed out, with reference to the economic effects upon the condition of India, that taxes spent in the country from which they were raised were totally different in their effect from taxes raised in one country and spent in another. In the former case the taxes collected from the population were again returned to the industrial classes; but the case was wholly different when taxes were not spent in the country from which they were raised, as they constituted an absolute loss and extinction of the whole amount withdrawn from the taxed country; and he said, further, that such was the nature of the tribute the British had so long exacted from India—and that with this explanation some faint conception may be formed of the cruel, crushing effect of the tribute upon India—that this tribute, whether weighed in the scales of Justice or viewed in the light of the British interests, would be found to be at variance with humanity, with common sense, and with the received maxim of economical science. Mr. Fawcett quoted Lord Metcalf (5th May,
    1058
    1868), that the bane of the British-Indian system was, that the advantages were reaped by one class and the work was done by another. This havoc was going on increasing up to the present day. Lord Salisbury, in a Minute [Ret. c. 3086–1 of 1881], pointed out that the injury was exaggerated in the case of India, where so much of the revenue was exported without a direct equivalent—that as India must be bled, the lancet should be directed to the parts where the blood was congested or at least sufficient, not to the rural districts which were already feeble from the want of blood. This bleeding of India must cease. Lord Hartington (the Duke of Devonshire) declared (23rd Aug., 1883) that India was insufficiently governed, and that if it was to be better governed, that could only be done by the employment of the best and most intelligent of the natives in the Service; and he further advised that it was not wise to drive the people to think that their only hope lay in getting rid of their English rulers. Lastly, with regard to the present condition of India, and even serious danger to British power, a remarkable confirmation was given, after a hundred years, to Sir John Shore's prophesy of 1787, by the Secretary of State for India in 1886. A letter of the India Office to the Treasury said (Ret. c. 4868 of 1886)—
    "The position of India in relation to taxation and the sources of the public revenue is very peculiar, not merely from the habits of the people and their strong aversion to change, which is more specially exhibited to new forms of taxation, but likewise from the character of the Government, which is in the hands of foreigners, who hold the principal administrative offices and form so large a part of the Army. The impatience of the new taxation which will have to be borne wholly as a consequence of the; foreign rule imposed on the country and virtually to meet additions to charges arising outside of the country, would constitute a political danger, the real magnitude of which, it is to lie feared, is not at all appreciated by persons who have no knowledge of or concern in the government of India, but which those responsible for that government have long regarded as of the most serious order."
    To sum up—as to the material condition of India—the main features in the last century were gross corruption and oppression by the Europeans; in the present century, high salaries and the heavy weight of the European services—their economic condition. Therefore, there was no such thing as the finances of

    1059
    India. No financier ever could make a real healthy finance of India, unless he could make two and two equal to six. The most essential condition was wanting. Taxes must be administered by and disbursed to those who paid. That did not exist. From the taxes raised every year a large portion was eaten up and carried away from the country by others than the people of British India. The finances of that country were simply inexplicable, and could not be carried out; if the extracts he had read meant anything, they meant that the present evil system of a foreign domination was destroying them, and was fraught with political danger of the most serious order to British power itself. It had been clearly pointed out that India was extremely poor. What advantage had been derived by India during the past 100 years under the administration of the most highly-praised and most highly-paid officials in the world? If there was any condemnation of the existing system, it was in the result that the country was poorer than any country in the world. He could adduce a number of facts and figures of the practical effect of the present system of administration, but there was not the time now. The very fact of the wail of the Finance Ministers of this decade was a complete condemnation. He was quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India was truly desirous to know the truth, but he could not know that clearly unless certain information was placed before the House. He would suggest if the right hon. Gentleman allowed a certain number of Returns which would give the regular production of the country year by year, and the absolute necessaries of a common labourer to live in working health. In connection with the trade test there was one fallacy which he must explain. They were told in Statistical Returns that India had an enormous trade of nearly £196,000,000, imports and exports together. If he sent goods worth £100 out of this country to some other country, he expected there was £100 of it returned to him with some addition of profit. That was the natural condition of every trade. In the Colonies and in European countries there was an excess of imports over exports. In the United Kingdom for the past 10 years—1883
    1060
    to 1892—the excess had been 32 per cent., in Norway it was 42 per cent., Sweden 24 per cent., Denmark 40 per cent., Holland 22 per cent., France 20 per cent., Switzerland 28 per cent., Spain 9 per cent., Belgium 7 per cent., and so on. Anyone with common sense would, of course, admit that if a quantity of goods worth a certain amount of money were sent out, an additional profit was expected in return; if not, there could not be any commerce; but a man who only received in return 90 of the 100 sent out would soon go into the Bankruptcy Court. Taking India's profits to be only 10 per cent. instead of 32 per cent., like those of the United Kingdom, and after making all deductions for remittances for interest on public works loans, India had received back Rs. 170,000,000 worth of imports less than what she exported annually. On the average of 10 years (1883 to 1892) their excesses of exports every year, with compound interest, would amount to enormous sums lost by her. Could any country in the world, England not excepted, stand such a drain without destruction? They were often told they ought to be thankful, and they were thankful, for the loans made to them for public works; but if they were left to themselves to enjoy what they produced with a reasonable price for British rule, if they had to develop their own resources, they would not require any such loans with the interest to be paid on them, which added to the drain on the country. Those loans wore only a fraction of what was taken away from the country. India had lost thousands of millions in principal and interest, and was asked to be thankful for the loan of a couple of hundreds of millions. The bulk of the British Indian subjects were like hewers of wood and drawers of water to the British and foreign Indian capitalists. The seeming prosperity of British India was entirely owing to the amount of foreign capital. In Bombay alone, which was considered to be a rich place, there were at least £10,000,000 of capital circulating belonging to foreign Europeans and Indians from native States. If all such foreign capital were separated there would be very little wealth in British India. He could not go further into these figures, because he must have an occasion on which he could go more fully into them. If only the right hon. Gentleman the

    1061
    Secretary of State for India would give them the Returns which were necessary to understand more correctly and completely the real condition of India, they would all be the better for it. There was another thing that was very serious. The whole misfortune at the bottom, which made the people of British India the poorest in the world, was the pressure to be forced to pay, roughly speaking, 200,000,000 rupees annually for European foreign services. Till this evil of foreign domination, foretold by Sir John Shore, was reduced to reasonable dimensions, there was no hope, and no true and healthy finance for India. This canker was destructive to India and suicidal to the British. The British people would not stand a single day the evil if the Front Benches here—all the principal military and civil posts and a large portion of the Army—were to be occupied by some foreigners on even the plea of giving service. When an English official had acquired experience in the Service of 20 or 30 years, all that was entirely lost to India when he left the country, and it was a most serious loss, although he did not blame him for leaving the shore. They were loft at a certain low level. They could not rise; they could not develop their capacity for higher government, because they had no opportunity; the result was, of course, that their faculties must be stunted. Lastly, every European displaced an Indian who should fill that post. In short, the evil of the foreign rule involved the triple loss of wealth, wisdom, and work. No wonder at India's material and moral poverty! The next point was the wants of the Indians. He did not think it would require very long discussion to ascertain their wants. They could be summed up in a few words. They wanted British honour, good faith, righteousness, and justice. They should then get everything that was good for themselves, and it would benefit the rulers themselves, but unfortunately that had not been their fortune. Here they had an admission of the manner in which their best interests were treated. Lord Lytton, in a confidential Minute, said—
    "No sooner was the Act passed than the Government began to devise means for practically evading the fulfilment of it…We all know that these claims and expectations never can or will be fulfilled. We have had to choose between prohibiting them and cheating
    1062
    them, and we have chosen the least straightforward course."
    He would not believe that the Sovereign and the Parliament who gave these pledges of justice and honour intended to cheat. It was the Indian Executive who had abused their trust. That Act of 1833 was a dead letter up to the present day. Lord Lytton said—
    "Since I am writing confidentially, I do not hesitate to say that both the Governments of England and of India appear to me up to the present moment unable to answer satisfactorily the charge of having taken every means in t heir power of breaking to the heart the words of promise they had uttered to the ear."
    What they wanted was, that what Lord Salisbury called "bleeding" should have an end. That would restore them to prosperity, and England might derive ten times more benefit by trading with a prosperous people than she was doing now. They were destroying the bird that could give them ten golden eggs with a blessing upon them. The hon. Member for Kingston, in his India in 1880, said—
    "Many native statesmen have been produced of whom the Indian nation may justly be proud, and among whom may be mentioned Salar Jung of Hyderabad, Dunkar Rao of Gwalior, Madhar Rao of Baroda, Kirparam of Jammu, Pundit Manphal of Alwar, Faiz Ali Khan of Kotah. Madha Rao Barvi of Kolahpur, and Purnia of Mysore."
    Mountstuart Elphinstone said, before the Committee of 1833—
    "The first object, therefore, is to break down the separation between the classes and raise the natives by education and public trust to a level with their present rulers."
    He addressed the Conservative Party. It was this Party who had given the just Proclamation of 1858—their greater Charter—in these words—
    "We hold ourselves bound to the natives of our Indian territories by the same obligations of duty which bind us to all our other subjects, and those obligations, by the blessing of Almighty God, we shall faithfully and conscientiously fulfil."
    It was, again, the Conservative Party that, on the assumption of the Imperial title by our Sovereign, proclaimed again the equality of the natives, whatever their race or creed, with their English fellow-subjects, and that their claim was founded in the highest justice. At the Jubilee, under the Conservative Government again, the Empress of India gave to her Indian subjects the gracious assurance and pledge that—

    1063
    "It had always been and always will be Her earnest desire to maintain unswervingly the principles laid down in the Proclamation published on Her assumption of the direct control of the Government of India."
    He (Mr. Naoroji) earnestly appealed to this Party not to give the lie to these noble assurances, and not to show to the world that it was all hypocrisy and national bad faith. The Indians would still continue to put their faith in the English people, and ask again and again to have justice done. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India, and to the Government and the Liberal Party, who gave them their first emancipation. They felt deeply grateful for the promises made, but would ask that these words be now converted into loyal, faithful deeds, as Englishmen for their honour are bound to do. Some weeks ago the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian wrote a letter to Sir John Cowan in which he stated that the past 60 years had been years of emancipation. Many emancipations had taken place in these years; the Irish, the Jews, the slaves, all received emancipation in that wave of humanity which passed over this country, and which made this country the most brilliant and civilised of the countries of the world. In those days of emancipation, and in the very year in which the right hon. Gentleman began his political career, the people of India also had their emancipation at the hands of the Liberal Party. It was the Liberal Party that passed the Act of 1833 and made the magnificent promises, explained both by Macaulay and Lansdowne. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian to say whether, after the Liberal Party having given this emancipation at the commencement of his political career, he would at the end of it, while giving emancipation to 3,000,000 of Irishmen, only further enslave the 300,000,000 of India? The decision relating to the simultaneous examinations meant rivetting back upon them every chain broken by the act of emancipation. The right hon. Gentleman in 1893, in connection with the Irish question, after alluding to the arguments of fear and force, said—
    "I hope we shall never again have occasion to fall back upon that miserable argument. It is better to do justice for terror than not to do it at all; but we are in a condition neither of
    1064
    terror nor apprehension, but in a calm and thankful state. We ask the House to accept this Bill, and I make that appeal on the grounds of honour and of duty."
    Might he, then, appeal in these days when every educated man in India was thoroughly loyal, when there was loyalty in every class of the people of India, and ask was it not time for England to do justice to India on the same grounds of "honour and duty?" The right hon. Member also said—
    "There can be no more melancholy, and in the last result no more degrading, spectacle upon earth than the spectacle of oppression, or of wrong in whatever form, inflicted by the deliberate act of a nation upon another nation, especially by the deliberate act of such a country as Great Britain upon such a country as Ireland."
    This applied to India with a force tea times greater. And he appealed for the nobler spectacle of which the right hon. Gentleman subsequently spoke. He said—
    "But, on the other hand, there can be no nobler spectacle than that which we think is now dawning upon us, the spectacle of a nation deliberately set on the removal of injustice, deliberately determined to break—not through terror, not in haste, but under the sole influence of duty and honour—determined to break with whatever remains still existing of an evil tradition, and determined in that way at once to pay a debt of justice, and to consult by a bold, wise, and good act, its own interests and its own honour."
    These noble words applied with tenfold necessity to Britain's duty to India. It would be in the interest of England to remove the injustice under which India suffered more than it would be in the interest even of India itself. He would repeat the prayer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian, that he would not allow his glorious career to end with the enthralment of 300,000,000 of the human race whose destinies are entrusted to this great country, and from which they expect nothing but justice and righteousness. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India the other day made a memorable speech at Wolverhampton. Among other things, he uttered these noble words—
    "New and pressing problems were coming up with which the Liberal Party would have to deal. These problems were the moral and material conditions of the people, for both went very much together. They were the problems that the statesmen of the future would have to solve. Mr. Bright once said that the true glory

    1065
    of a nation was not in ships and colonies and commerce, bat in the happiness of its homes, and that no Government and no Party deserved the confidence of the British electorate which did not give a foremost place in its legislation and administration to those measures which would promote the comfort, health, prosperity, well-being, and the well-doing of the masses of the people."
    He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India that in that spirit he should study the Indian problem. Here in England they had to deal with only 38,000,000 of people, and if the right hon. Gentleman would once understand the Indian problem and do them the justice for which they had been waiting for 60 years, he would be one of the greatest benefactors of the human race. He appealed also to the present Prime Minister with confidence, because he had had an opportunity of knowing that the Prime Minister thoroughly understood the Indian problem. Few Englishmen so clearly understood that problem or the effect of the drain on the resources of India. He saw clearly also how far India was to be made a blessing to itself and to England. Would he begin his promising career as Prime Minister by enslaving 300,000,000 of British subjects? He appealed to him to consider. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India that the feeling in India among the educated classes was Hearing despair. It was a very bad seed that was being sown in connection with this matter if some scheme was not adopted, with reasonable modifications, to give some effect to the Resolution for simultaneous examinations, as was promised a few months ago. The Under Secretary for India assured them in the last Indian Budget Debate that neither he nor the Secretary of State for India had any disposition of thwarting or defeating that Resolution. Indians then felt assured on the point, and their joy was great. But what must be their despair and disappointment when such statements are put before the House of Commons and the country as were to be found in this dark Blue Book. It was enough to break anybody's heart. It would have broken his but for the strong faith he had in the justice of the British people and the one bright ray to
    1066
    be found even in that Return itself, which had strengthened him to continue his appeal as long as he should live. That ray has come from the Madras Government. They had pointed out that they felt bound to do something. They also pointed out the difficulties in the way, but these difficulties were not insurmountable. About the want of true living representation of the people he would not now say anything. Every Englishman understood its importance. The next point in the Motion was the ability to bear existing burdens. Indians were often told by men in authority that India was the lightest-taxed country in the world. The United Kingdom paid £2 10s. per head for the purposes of the State. They paid only 5s. or 6s. per head, and, therefore, the conclusion was drawn that the Indians were the most lightly-faxed people on earth. But if these gentlemen would only take the trouble of looking a little deeper they would see how the matter stood. England paid £2 10s. per head from an income of something like £35 per head, and their capacity, therefore, to pay £2 10s. was sufficiently large. Then, again, this £2 10s. returned to them—every farthing of it—in some form or another. The proportion they paid to the State in the shape of Revenues was, therefore, something like only 7 or 8 per cent. India paid 5s. or 6s. out of their wretched incomes of £2, or 20 rupees, as he calculated, or 27 rupees, as calculated by Lord Cromer. But even taking the latter figure, it would not make any great difference. The three rupees was far more burdensome compared with the wretched capacity of the people of India to bear taxation than the £2 10s. which England paid. At the rate of production of Rs.20 per head India paid 14 per cent. of her income for purposes of revenue—nearly twice as heavy as the incidence of the United Kingdom. Even at the rate of production of Rs.27 per head the Indian burden was 11 per cent. Then, again, take the test of the Income Tax. In the United Kingdom 1d. in the Income Tax gave some £2,500,000; but in India, with ten times the population, 1d. only gave about Rx.300,000, with an exemption of only Rx.50 instead of £150 as in this country. In the last 100 years the wealth of England

    1067
    had increased by leaps and bounds, while India, governed by the same Englishmen, was the same poor nation that it was all through the century that had elapsed, and India at the present moment was the most extremely poor country in the world, and would be poor to the end of the chapter if the present system of foreign domination continued. He did not say that the natives should attain to the highest positions of control and power. Let there be Europeans in the highest positions, such as the Viceroy, the Governors, the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces, and the higher military officers, and such others as might be reasonably considered to be required to hold the controlling powers. The controlling power of Englishmen in India was wanted as much for the benefit of India as for the benefit of England. The next point in the Motion was, what were the sources of Indian Revenue? The chief sources of the Revenue were just what was mainly obtained from the cultivators of the soil. Here in this country the landlords—the wealthiest people—paid from land only 2 or 3 per cent. of the Revenues, but in India land was made to contribute something like Rx.27,000,000 of the total Revenue of about Rx.67,000,000. Then the Salt Tax, the most cruel Revenue imposed in any civilised country, provided Rx.8,600,000, and that with the opium, formed the bulk of the Revenue of India, which was drawn from the wretchedness of the people and by poisoning the Chinese. It mattered not what the State received was called—tax, rent, revenue, or by any other name they liked—the simple fact of the matter was, that out of a certain annual national production the State took a certain portion. Now, it would not also matter much about the portion taken by the State if that portion, as in this country, returned to the people themselves, from whom it was raised. But the misfortune and the evil was that much of this portion did not return to the people, and that the whole system of Revenue, and the economic; condition of the people became unnatural and oppressive, with danger to the rulers. In this country the people drank nearly £4 per head, while in India they could not produce altogether more than half that amount per head. Was the system under which such a wretched condition prevailed not a matter for careful
    1068
    consideration? So long as the system went on, so long must the people go on living wretched lives. There was a constant draining away of India's resources, and she could never, therefore, be a prosperous country. Not only that, but in time India must perish, and with it might perish the British Empire. If India was prosperous, England would be prosperous ten times more than she was at present by reason of the trade she could carry on with India. England at present exported some £300,000,000 worth of British produce, yet to India she hardly exported produce to the value of 2s. 6d. per head. If India were prosperous enough to buy even £1 worth per head of English goods she would be able to send to India as much as she now sent to the whole world. Would it not, then, be a far greater benefit to England if India were prosperous than to keep her as she was? The next point in the Motion was the reduction of expenditure. The very first thing should be to cancel that immoral and and cruel "compensation" without any legal claim even. That was not the occasion to discuss its selfishness and utter disregard of the wretchedness of the millions of the people. But as if this injustice were not enough, other bad features were added to it, if my information be correct. The compensation was only for remittances to this country. But instead of this—every European and Eurasian, whether he had to make any family remittances or not, was to have a certain addition to his salary. That was not all. The iniquity of making race distinctions was again adopted in this also; Europeans and Eurasians, whether remittances had to be made or not, were to receive compensation; but an Indian, who had actually to make remittances for the education of his sons, could have no consideration. But he (Mr. Naoroji) deprecated the whole thing altogether—to take from the wretched to give to the better-off. This compensation should be cancelled as the first step in reduction. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other day in his splendid speech at his magnificent ovation by the Liberal Members, in speaking of the landowners, the burden was always shifted on to other shoulders, and always on those least able to pay. This was exactly the principle of Anglo-Indian authorities. If it

    1069
    was really intended to retrench with regard to expenditure in India, why not begin with the salary list? The Viceroy surely could get his bread and butter with £20,000 a year instead of £25,000. The Governors could surely have bread and cheese for £6,000 or £8,000 instead of £10,000, and so on down till the end of the salary list was reached at Ks.200 a month. This would afford a much-needed relief, because India could not really afford to pay. Sir William Hunter had rightly said that if we were to govern the Indian people efficiently and cheaply we must govern them by means of themselves, and pay for the administration at the market rates of native labour; that the good work of security and law had assumed such dimensions under the Queen's government of India that it could no longer be carried on or even supervised by imported labour from England, except at a cost which India could sustain, and he had prophesied that 40 years hereafter they would have had an Indian Ireland multiplied fifty-fold on their hands. The Service must change from that which was dear, and at the same time unsatisfactory, to one which would require less money and which would at the same time be fruitful to the people themselves. Next, three Secretaries of State and two Viceroys the other day in the House of Lords condemned in the strongest, terms the charge that was made by the War Office for troops in India. But it seemed that one Secretary for India (Lord Kimberley) trembled to approach the War Minister, because each new discussion resulted in additional charges and additional burdens. He also truly said that the Authorities here, not having to pay from their own pockets, readily made proposals of charges which were unjust and unnecessary, to make things agreeable. The consequence was that charges were imposed which were unjust and cruel. In fact, whatever could have the name of India attached to it, India was forced to pay for it. That was not the justice which he expected from the English. With reference to these military charges, the burden now thrown upon India on account of British troops was excessive, and he thought every impartial judgment would assent to that proposition, considering the relative ma-
    1070
    terial wealth of the two countries and their joint obligations and benefits. All that they could do was to appeal to the British Government for an impartial consideration of the relative financial capacity of the two countries, and for a generous consideration to be shown by the wealthiest nation in the world to a dependency so comparatively poor and so little advanced as India, fie believed that if any Committee were appointed to inquire, with the honest purpose of finding out how to make India prosperous and at the same time to confer as much if not more benefit to England, they could very easily find out the way, and would be able to suggest what should be done. Now, with regard to the financial relations between India and England, it was declared over and over again that this European Army and all European servants were for the special purpose of maintaining the power of the British Empire. Were they, therefore, not for some benefit to England? Were they only for the service of India, for their benefit and for their protection? Was it right that they did avowedly use machinery more for their own purposes than for the purposes of India, and yet make India pay altogether? Was it right, if India's prosperity was, as Lord Roberts said, so indissolubly bound up with their own, and if the greatness and prosperity of the United Kingdom depended upon the retention of India, that they should pay nothing for it, and that they should extract from it every farthing they possibly could? They appealed to their sense of justice in this matter. They were not asking for this as any favour or concession. They based their appeal on the ground of simple justice. Here was a machinery by which both England and India benefited, and it was only common justice that both should share the cost of it. If this expenditure on the European Army and the European Civil Services, which was realty the cause of their misery, was for the benefit of both, it was only right that they, as honourable men, should take a share. Their prayer was for an impartial and comprehensive inquiry so that the whole matter might be gone into, and that the question of principles and policy which, after all, was one for their statesmen to decide, should be properly dealt with. They knew that during the rule of

    1071
    the East India Company an inquiry was made every 20 years into the affairs of India. This was no reflection upon the Government; it was simply to see that the East India Company did their duty. There was such an inquiry in 1853, and he thought it was time, after 40 years had elapsed since the assumption of British rule by the Queen, that there should be some regular, independent inquiry like that which used to take place in former days, so that the people and Parliament of this country might see that the Indian Authorities were doing their duty. The result of the irresponsibility of the present British Administration was that the expenditure went on unchecked. He admitted fully that expenditure must go on increasing if India was to progress in her civilisation; but if they allowed her to prosper, India would be able not only to pay her £60,000,000 out of the 300,000,000 of population, but she would be able to pay twice, three times, and four times as much. It was not that they did not want to expend as much as was necessary. Their simple complaint was that the present system did not allow India to become prosperous, and so enable her to supply the necessary revenue. As to the character of the inquiry, it should be full and impartial. The right hon. Member for Midlothian said on one occasion not long ago, when the question of the Opium Trade was under discussion in that House—
    "I must make the admission that I do not think that in this matter we ought to be guided exclusively, perhaps even principally, by those who may consider themselves experts. It is a very sad thing to say, but unquestionably it happens not infrequently in human affairs that those who might, from their position, know the most and the best, yet, from their prejudices and prepossessions, know the least and the worst. I certainly for my part do not propose to abide finally and decisively by official opinion."
    And the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that what the House wanted, in his opinion, was "independent but responsible opinion," in order to enable it to proceed safely to a decision on the subject which was to be considered. He was asking by this Resolution nothing more than what the right hon. Gentle man the Member for Midlothian had said was actually necessary for the Opium Commission. How much more necessary it was when they meant to
    1072
    overhaul and examine all the various departments of administration, and the affairs of 300,000,000 of people, all in a state of transition in civilisation—complicated especially by this evil of foreign rule ! What was wanted was an independent inquiry by which the rulers and the ruled might come to some fair and honourable understanding with each other which would keep them together in good faith and good heart. He could only repeat the appeal he had made, in the words of the Queen herself, when Her Majesty in Her great Indian Proclamation said—
    "In their prosperity will be our strength, in their contentment our security, and in their gratitude our best reward!"
    and then She prayed—
    "and may the God of all power grant to us and to those in authority under us strength to carry out these our wishes for the good of our people!"
    He said Amen to that. He appealed once more to the House and to the British people to look into the whole problem of Indian relations with England. There was no reason whatever why there should not be a thorough good understanding between the two countries, a thorough goodwill on the part of Britain, and a thorough loyalty on the part of India, with blessings to both, if the principles and policy laid down from time to time by the British people and by the British Parliament were loyally, faithfully, and worthily, as the English character ought to lead them to expect, observed by the Government of that country.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words—
    "In the opinion of this House, a full and independent Parliamentary inquiry should take place into the condition and wants of the Indian people, and their ability to bear their existing financial burdens; the nature of the revenue system and the possibility of reductions in the expenditure; also the financial relations between India and the United Kingdom, and generally the system of Government in India."—(Mr. S. Smith.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    SIR A. SCOBLEdid not know how far, if at all, the Government proposed to meet this Resolution

    1073
    by accepting it, but could only say that the inquiry upon which the House was asked to enter would be very tedious and very expensive, and that although it might add something to the knowledge of those gentlemen who were not familiar with Indian affairs, it would really only give information which could already be obtained from other sources by any person who chose to take the trouble to look into them. Not one of those who listened to the hon. Member for East Finsbury but must have felt that he put forward his case with a strong conviction that it was a good one, and that he was supporting it by honest argument. He could only lament that the absence of the hon. Member from India during so many years had so far broken his recollection of the state of things that obtained during the time he was in residence that the hon. Member had had to go back to the last century for proofs of Indian maladministration instead of directing his attention to what had been done in India since the government of that country was assumed by Great Britain. They had not now to do with the days of Nabobs, with the state of things exposed by Mr. Sheridan, with what followed after the trial of Warren Hastings, and with what occurred in the earlier parts of this century. This inquiry was asked for to ascertain how India was governed under the Queen, how far that government corresponded with the requirements and condition of that country, and in what respect, if any, that government could be improved. That was an inquiry which had occupied the attention of successive Governments of India ever since Her Majesty assumed the government. It was a great mistake to suppose that the Government of India was not as fully alive as the hon. Member for East Finsbury, or as the National Congress, whose voice he expressed in that House, to the condition of India, to the points that required amendment, and the points on which amendments could be carried out. No one who knew India would deny that, as compared with the United Kingdom, it was a poor country, but, as lie said last year, poverty was a relative term. A man who would be poor in England upon an Indian income would upon that same income be very well off indeed in India. It was idle for the hon. Gentlemen to quote Lord Cromer, and to give as the result of his own inquiries
    1074
    the statement that the average income in India was only 27 rupees a year. No data existed by which a calculation of the average income could be made in an accurate form. Some might suppose that the conditions of life in India were the same as those of this country, where most of the people were employed for wages, and where they had to buy all the necessaries of life in shops and to pay rent for their houses. These expenses required a certain cash income to meet them. But they were not the expenses which were incurred by the Indian people at large. More than 70 per cent. of the whole population of India—of the 220,000,000 under the Queen's direct government—lived upon the land which had descended to them from their ancestors and which they cultivated. They paid no rent for their houses—these had been constructed by their own industry. They had nothing whatever to buy. Their sustenance they derived from the fields they cultivated, their luxuries from the gardens they kept; and their only financial transactions were made when they sold their surplus crops to pay the demands of the Government for the rent of the land they occupied, and when they purchased any additional luxuries for their own delectation. It was impossible that the income of people whoso sustenance was derived in this way could be put into reliable statistics; and the estimate by statisticians of an average income of 27 rupees per head among the natives only came to this: that as far as money transactions were concerned that might be a fair representation of their income, but as far as the necessaries of life and those conditions which made all the difference between poverty and wealth were concerned, these depended upon matters not measured by money, and into whose calculation in India money did not enter at all. He considered that the monetary demands made upon the poor, who were the bulk of the population, were of a very small character indeed. First of all, the rent which the collector paid for his land was not a tax and could not possibly be turned into one. It was very small, amounting to little more than a rupee per man. Measured in money it was only about 1–25th part of the 27 rupees of which the House had heard that night; but when measured by produce it was less than 8 per cent. of the total outcome of

    1075
    the land. Even in the North-West Provinces, where the Land Revenue was higher than in other parts of India, it only amounted to 8 per cent, of the total produce of the land. The bulk of the population of India paid no tax at all, except a proportion of the Salt Tax, and that was about 5d. per head. Even taking the comparison between the United Kingdom and India they would find that instead of the contribution of the Indian individual being very much greater than that of the English peasant, the Indian peasant paid less even in proportion to the 27 rupees than the Englishman did on the average income of £35 or £36 a year. If that were true, as regards the great bulk of the population, how did the taxation of India affect the other classes of the community? No doubt there was very great difficulty in obtaining any tax such as might be expected in this country with its great wealthy cities, well able to bear an Income Tax; but in India, as in other parts of the world, wealthy men were astute enough to successfully avoid to a large extent the Income Tax.
    It being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

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

    CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    On Motion of Mr. DODD, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
    Page 1, line 27, Sub-section (4), after "court shall," insert "before or at the hearing of the complaint."
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BRYCE, Aberdeen, S.)said, he had prepared an Amendment which he believed would effect exactly the same object as the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Channing) had in view, with the Amendment of which he had given notice, but in other words.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 1, after the word "force," to insert the words—
    or if that rate or charge is higher than the rate or charge in force on the last day of December one thousand eight hundred and ninety-
    1076
    two, then such sum as would have been payable on the footing of the last-mentioned rate or charge."—(Mr. Bryce.")
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACHthought this carried out the desire of the Committee and the intention of the hon. Member for Northampton, and it appeared to do so in the proper and in a more grammatical manner.
    DR. CLARKsaid, he had often found when there was agreement between the Leaders on the two Front Benches there was reason to look on a proposal with suspicion; therefore, that more consideration might be given to the matter he would move the adjournment of the Debate.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,)hoped his hon. Friend would not arrest the progress of the Bill at a point where there was general agreement.
    It being after Midnight, and Objection being taken to Further Proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

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

    THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    MR. CHAPLIN: I desire to move that the Bill be re-committed in respect to Clauses 24 and 25, and I am not without hope that Her Majesty's Government may be inclined to accept the Amendment I would suggest in Committee. The Amendment has stood on the Paper for some days, and but for my being accidentally prevented from being in my place last night I would have moved the Amendment when the Bill was in Committee. My object is to effect a change in the law, a proceeding which is perhaps not usual in Consolidation Bills, but the matter is of so much importance, and there is so little prospect of being able to do it in any other manner this Session, I beg leave to submit my Amendment

    1077
    My object is to effect such a change in the law as will in future make it obligatory upon the Board of Agriculture, instead of leaving it a matter for discretion, to order the slaughter at the port of debarcation of all animals coming from foreign countries. That is the practice at this moment. All animals coming into the country are bound to be slaughtered on landing, but there is a discretion vested in the Board of Agriculture to admit animals without slaughter should the Board think fit. I press this now, because during the past three years there have been instances of cattle inspected with disease being landed in this country and in Scotland. These cattle came from Canada, and there the Board of Agriculture very properly exercised their power and insisted on the slaughter of all cattle at the port of arrival. But at the same time great pressure has been exercised from various influential quarters to get this restriction withdrawn, and I think it right that the law should be altered so that responsibility should be borne by Parliament, and not by any Department of the Government. The pressure brought to bear upon the Board of Agriculture was so great that even the President, who ordered a special inquiry and examination of carcases of animals went so far as to say that if, as the result of the examination, traces of disease were not found, he should feel it his duty to make a concession to the demands made upon him.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,): I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon; he is entirely mistaken.
    MR. CHAPLIN: I have not the statement with me now, but I will undertake to say that in those or somewhat similar terms he held out hopes to those who were pressing him that if disease was not found in the course of the examination he would think it right to reconsider his decision.
    MR. H. GARDNER: If there is no disease we are bound by the law.
    MR. CHAPLIN: Not at all. That would be assuming that a country was free from disease: but let me point out that if in an examination of that kind no disease was found, that would not be the slightest guarantee that the country was free from disease, and for this reason:
    1078
    Animals sent to this country at the time when those persons interested in the trade abroad were very apprehensive of an Order being issued here were subjected to the most rigid examination before they were shipped, although the examination gave no guarantee of the soundness of the animal, and the greatest possible care was taken so that any animal to which the slightest suspicion of disease could attach was rejected and not allowed to come to this country. All the animals that came were carefully selected, and there was every chance that they would be free from disease. Under the circumstances, I contend that the special examination was no kind of security to us whatever; but unless I very grossly misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, he did distinctly, in response to the pressure put upon him, hold out hopes that if the examination showed no trace of disease, then under the circumstances he would think it right to reconsider his decision. That was a great danger which the country happily escaped, but it is a danger which ought not to recur, and it is a danger to which we are continually subjected. Great pressure from influential quarters, as I have said, is brought to bear upon the right hon. Gentleman to induce him to relax the restriction. First, there is pressure from the Canadian Government; secondly, from the Colonial Office here; thirdly, from the people interested in ranches and the cattle trade of Canada; and, fourthly, from a limited section of Scotch feeders of cattle in two or three Scotch counties, and a still more limited number of feeders in England. There is always the apprehension that this pressure may be successful, and my desire is to remove that danger in the future. It will not alter the present practice one iota, and whenever a country becomes free from disease, then the Act may be repealed in this particular. But meantime the responsibility should he with Parliament; it should not rest with a Government Department. For this reason I take the somewhat unusual course—but the only one open to me, owing to the Government arrangement of business—of moving the re-committal of the Bill.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the words, "now read the third time," and add the words "re-committed in respect of Clauses 24 and 25."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the Question."
    Sin W. HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman has said very truly that he has taken a most unusual course, and indeed I may say it is an unparalleled course on a Bill of this kind. It is the first time within my experience that such a proposal has been made. This is a Consolidation Bill, and the very object and essence of such a Bill is to consolidate Acts and not alter the law. Of course, we shall resist the Motion, and the only consequence of the right hon. Gentleman's action, if he perseveres in it, will be that this Bill, which is introduced in the interest of the agricultural community to show it will be a great advantage to have a consolidation of complicated Statutes, must be withdrawn. If the Motion is persisted in we must move the discharge of the Order, and the reponsibility will be with the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. CHAPLIN: I am quite aware of that.
    MR. H. GARDNER: I beg to move that the Order be discharged.
    MR. T. M. HEALYhoped the Government would not relinquish the endeavour to get the Bill through. This codification of Acts was undoubtedly most useful work, and much time and care had been bestowed upon this Bill. Who would be disposed to devote hours of labour to putting the law on a given subject into shape if in a moment of pique the result was to be thrown aside? Certainly this was likely to deter anyone from undertaking this work of Statute Law revision.
    MR. WARNERhoped the Government would not persist in withdrawing the Bill. Let such a Motion be deferred for a few hours, and perhaps by the morrow the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) would have reconsidered the case, and would not be disposed to follow a policy of "cutting off his nose to spite his face." Of course, it would be admitted that for farmers it was a very serious thing to allow the importation of live cattle from a country where disease exists.
    MR. H. GARDNER: The Government are willing to accept that advice, and to give the right hon. Gentleman a
    1080
    locus penitentiœ We will defer the consideration of the Bill to Thursday.
    MR. CHAPLIN: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means by offering me a locus penitentiœ. I have made a statement in regard to a subject the importance of which will be generally recognised in connection with agricultural interests, and no answer has been made.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Objection being taken stops further proceedings, and the Bill stands over.
    It being after Midnight, and Objection being taken to Further Proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed upon Thursday.

    STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [Lords]. (No. 354.)
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    SIR F. S. POWELLasked if this Bill had received the usual revision by the constituted authorities? On former occasions opportunity had been given to examine such Bills, and to make suggestions which were sometimes useful. He did not in any way wish to delay the Bill; but he asked, had the usual practice been followed? and hoped that some little time would be allowed to elapse between the circulation of such a Bill and its Second Reading.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir J. RIGHT,)said, the Bill had received the usual consideration of the Joint Committee, and had been reconsidered since printing. He had an Amendment to propose, but subject to that he could say that no blot would be found in the Bill. The Second Reading was taken last night.
    SIR F. S. POWELLsaid, he got his copy this morning. Would the Government give an undertaking that, in future, a sufficient interval should be allowed?
    DR. CLARKthought that if an Amendment was to be made on the Bill, which only came into the hands of Members this morning, it should not now be proceeded with.
    Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir J. Rigby.)
    Motion agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

    EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL. (No. 349.)
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses agreed to.
    Schedule.
    SIR. S. POWELLsaid, in the Act of last year the different Acts were numbered, but this year he observed the numbers were omitted. It was convenient to have the numbers inserted.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,)regretted that the numbers were not put in; he feared it was too late now to insert them.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

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

    SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [2nd August], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    SIR F. S. POWELLasked, what was the reason for the introduction of this Bill? The first clause seemed to imply that employers had acted with harshness and unfairness in regard to this matter towards their workmen; but, although he represented a mining district, he had never heard any complaint of that kind. At first sight the idea would arise that the Bill was intended to provide a remedy or the unjust action of employers.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,was sorry the hon. Member was not present when he moved the Second Reading, for he then explained he reasons that led to the introduction of the Bill. He was glad to say that no case, so far as he was aware, in England had made the Bill necessary; but there had been cases in Scotland—cases before the Courts—from which it appeared that the employer, not having any power to
    1082
    dismiss the check weigher without resorting to the Courts and giving legal ground for it, had taken an indirect means by dismissing the whole of the workmen, refusing to re-admit them unless they agreed not to employ the check weigher, and this had been held to be not a violation of the existing Act. It was to provide for such cases of extreme gravity, such as had never been heard of on this side of the border, that the Bill had been introduced.
    MR. TOMLINSONasked if the right hon. Gentleman intended to omit Clause 2?
    MR. ASQUITH: Yes.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  QUARRIES BILL [Lords].—(No. 341.)

    CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYformally moved to omit from the Schedule the words "Section nine," for the purpose of asking a question. The Schedule applied to quarries henceforth to be subject to the Metalliferous Mines Act the section of the old Mines Act which prohibited the payment of wages in public-houses. But by the general Act of 1883 this was made illegal anywhere. Was it worth while, therefore, to include this section in the Schedule?
    MR. ASQUITHsaid, he was quite aware of the fact that by general Act the practice was prohibited, but it had been thought more convenient to include the section in the application of the Mines Act to quarries, and though it was not necessary it could do no harm. The hon. Gentleman on a previous occasion inquired as to whether the reference to the Schedules by number meant inclusive. That was so, and it was provided for in the Interpretation Clause.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) BILL.

    MOTION FOR LEAVE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883."—(Sir J. T. Hibbert.)
    DR. CLARKobjected to the Bill being brought in at that hour; it should be deferred to the commencement of the Sitting on Thursday.
    MR. KNOXbegged the hon. Member not to persist in his objection. It was a Bill introduced at the desire of Irish Members generally, not only of the Nationalist Party. Whoever the hon. Member had a grievance against it was clearly not against the Irish Members, and he should think twice and thrice before taking objection to the introduction without alleging a reason.
    Objection withdrawn.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir J. T. Hibbert, The Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. J. Morley.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 359.]

    CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 9) (CANALS OF CALEDONIAN AND NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY COMPANIES) BILL.—(No. 265.)
    Lords Amendments agreed to.
    CANAL RATES, TOLLS, AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 11) (GRAND CANAL, &c.) BILL.—(No. 267.)
    Lords Amendments agreed to.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to,—
    Canal Rates, Tolls, and Charges Provisional Order (No. 2) (Bridgwater, &c, Canals) Bill.
    Town Improvements (Betterment),—That they communicate Copy of the Report from the Select Committee appointed by their Lordships on Town Improvements (Betterment), with the Proceedings of the Committee, and Minutes of Evidence, as desired by this House.
    Marking of Foreign and Colonial Produce,—That they communicate Copy of the Report from the Select Committee appointed by their Lordships on Marking of Foreign and Colonial Produce, with the Proceedings of the Committee, and Minutes of Evidence, as desired by this House.

    CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 353.)
    Considered in Committee, and reported; Bill re-committed, in respect of Clauses 1 and 3; considered in Committee, and reported; as amended to be considered To-morrow.
    PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN BILL [Lords].—(No. 342.)
    As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
    JURIES (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 350.)
    Read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

    FRANCHISE AND REMOVAL OF WOMEN'S DISABILITIES BILL.
    On Motion of Sir Charles Dilke, Bill to establish a single Franchise at all Elections, and to remove the Disabilities of Women, ordered to be brought in by Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Jacob Bright, Mr. John Burns, Mr. Keir-Hardie, Mr. William Allen, Dr. Clark, and Mr. Byles.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 357.]

    CROFTERS ACTS (INCLUSION OF LEASEHOLDERS) BILL.
    On Motion of Dr. Clark, Bill to include Leas e-holders under the provisions of the Crofters Acts, ordered to be brought in by Dr. Clark, Mr. Weir, and Dr. Macgregor.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 358.]

    CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND) [REMUNERATION].
    Resolution reported; "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."
    Resolution agreed to.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS, 1878 to 1893.
  Copy presented,—of further Papers and Correspondence relating to the landing in Great Britain from Canada of Cattle affected with Pleuro-Pneumonia, with Copy of a Minute of the Board of Agriculture dated 13th August 1894, and Minutes of Evidence and Appendices (in continuation of [C. 7123] and [C. 7366]) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.

NEW PEER.
The Right Honourable Sir Horace Davey, Knight, one of the Lord Justices of Appeal, having been appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary under the provisions of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, with the dignity of a Baron for life, by the style and title of Baron Davey of Fernhurst in the county of Susses, was (in the usual manner) introduced.

ALIENS BILL.
THE MARQUESS OK LONDONDERRY: I wish to ask the noble Marquess (Lord Salisbury) a question of which I have given him private notice. It is, what course he proposes to adopt with regard to the Aliens Bill, which passed its Second Reading in your Lordships' House a few weeks ago? I ask the question because considerable anxiety has been evinced with regard to the future of the Bill in the seaport towns of England near which I reside. Consequently, I hope to hear from the noble Marquess that he is not going to allow the measure to drop.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The measure is still on your Lordships' Order Paper, and I have still the same strong conviction which I had when I submitted it to the House as to the importance of the provisions proposed. But the same night on which it was adopted in this House by a large majority the Leader of the House of Commons was asked whether he would give time for its discussion in the other House. There is no doubt that the Government is entirely master of the time of the House of Commons, and that they have not only the power of rejecting a Bill which has been discussed, but they have the power to refuse the time to have it discussed at all. The Leader of the House of Commons stated in emphatic language—in very unusually forcible language—that he would not find time for the discussion of this Bill. I hope against hope that in that view he may not persevere, and that
890
he may see reason to give an opportunity for the discussion of a Bill which undoubtedly has excited a great deal of sympathy out-of-doors. But until I see some chance of its being discussed in the House of Commons it seems to me idle to go further with it in this House. Your Lordships have already been pleased to express by a large majority your approval of the principle of the Bill. As soon as I see any chance of its being discussed—I do not say passed—in the House of Commons I shall ask your Lordships to consider the details of it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): I should not have interposed in the little comedy between the two noble Marquesses, but I should like to say a few words on the point whether a Bill is to be discussed in the other House or not. That will depend on what would be the form and the character of the Bill when it left this House. It seems to be a somewhat unreasonable proceeding to consider in this House whether a Bill is going to be discussed in the other House at a time when it is quite uncertain what its form will be. The noble Marquess says the Bill was carried by a large majority; but the majority relatively to the number of supporters of the noble Marquess in this House was by no means large—quite the contrary; and the noble Duke who voted for the Second Reading of the Bill expressed himself as not being supposed to support one-half of it. The noble Duke thought it was a pity that the Bill was not divided into two parts, and expressed dissent from that part by which the noble Marquess sets the greater store. Under those circumstances, it would be quite premature to consider what would be done with the Bill in the other House—at all events, till we know what it will be as it leaves this House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked the Prime Minister, having given private notice to the Lord Privy Seal, whether, as the Second Reading of the Scotch Local Government Bill was down for that day, and as the Committee stage would probably be taken on Thursday, he would consent to the House meeting at 3 o'clock on Thursday instead of a quarter past 4? That arrangement would be convenient to a great many Members of the House.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY AND LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of ROSE-BERY): My Lords, I had not hoard anything of this question before I entered the House. Notice to my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal is not essentially the same thing as notice to myself, but I think the case is even stronger than the noble Earl puts it. The Equalisation of Rates Bill is also down for Thursday, and, therefore, I am all the more willing to accede to the noble Earl's suggestion.

THE NEW INLAND REVENUE AFFIDAVITS.
THE DUKE OF RUTLAND THE DUKE OF RUTLAND moved, as the Lord President had stated the other day, there would be no opposition to the Return he asked for, for copies of the new Inland Revenue affidavits, with the proposed Schedules.
Motion agreed to.

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
Moved,—
"That the Lord Kensington be appointed to take the Chair in Committee of the Whole House this day in the absence of the Chairman of Committees."—(The Lord Privy Seal [Lord Tweedmouth].)
Motion agreed to.

CANAL TOLLS AND CHAEGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) (BIRMINGHAM CANAL) BILL.—(No. 198.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, he had some Amendments to which he hoped the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would agree, as he thought it unlikely that either in that House, or in another place any opposition would be offered to them. They were really to supply omissions per incuriam in the previous stages of the Bill.
  LORD MONKSWELLsaid, he would deal with the Amendments on the Report stage if the noble Lord would withdraw them for the present.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, he would move them again on the Report stage.
  On Motion, "That the Report be now received," Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH moved, in Clause 18, page 7, line 15, after ("nothing in") insert ("the foregoing part of").
  Line 16, after Sub-section (d) insert—
  "(e.) In calculating the distance for all purposes of tolls and charges in respect of canned, tap mill forge and coal cinders, coal, coke, culm, and slack, the distance on the Churchbridge branch of the canal shall be taken as equal to one mile and a quarter."
  Motion agreed to.
  Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.

CANAL RATES, TOLLS, AND CHAEGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) (BRIDGWATER, &c. CANALS) BILL.—(No. 185.)

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order).
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY moved, in page 5, line 10, after ("or") insert—
  ("except in the case of the canals of the Shropshire Union Railways and Canal Company.")
  Page 19, line 34, insert ("3d.") in the 7th column.
  Insert ("3d.") in the 8th column.
  Insert ("1d.") in the 9th column.
  Insert ("1d.") in the 10th column.
  Amendments agreed to.
  Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

CROWN LANDS BILL.—(No. 199.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: As the Lord President had stated yesterday his willingness to answer questions, I should like to ask what is the object of Clause 5 of the Bill which repeals provisions in former Acts authorising grants of lands for churches and chapels on certain conditions? As he had not given notice he would postpone it if desired.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsuggested that the noble Lord should put down his Amendment for Third Reading. Though prepared yesterday, he

  893
  was not enabled to answer questions on this occasion.
  Bill reported without amendment.
  Standing Committee negatived, and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.

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

  SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
  Order of the Day for resuming the Debate on the Amendment to the Motion for the Second Reading read. Debate resumed accordingly.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I do not know that I can ever recollect a time when a measure of such great importance as the one now before the House has been brought forward by those responsible for it with so little attempt either to establish a case for the measure or to justify, or even to explain, the principles on which it is founded. My noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, in moving the Second Reading yesterday, did little but explain the provisions of the Bill. He made some estimate of the extent and number of the cases to which, in the opinion of the Government, the proposals would apply. He also made some estimate of the sufficiency of the funds provided by the Bill. But the case which ho laid before this House for the introduction of this measure appeared to me simply to consist of this: My noble Friend said that the question of Irish land and the Irish land system was a very peculiar one; that it was necessary for us to remove from our minds all notions founded on English and Scotch practice; and that it had been found necessary on several occasions to deal with the question of land in Ireland in an exceptional manner by means of both permanent and temporary measures. My noble Friend said that another difficulty had arisen; and he appeared to think that it was the obvious, simple, and natural conclusion that that difficulty should again be met in the same manner by a temporary measure founded upon exceptional principles. He appeared to think that when there had been so many of them it did not make a great deal of difference whether there were one or two other exceptional measures more or less.
  894
  But as to the magnitude of the evil to be dealt with, or as to the fitness and appropriate character of the remedy to be applied, my noble Friend said very little. He did inform the House that this Bill would apply to 4,000 tenants, and he said that in his opinion those tenants had a grievance. I fully admit—and I think every Member of this House admits—that those tenants are almost universally subjects of pity and compassion, and that some of them are subjects of sympathy. But I do not know exactly what is the actual grievance under which my noble Friend thinks that these tenants suffer. He said that some of them were evicted before the passing of the Act of 1881, and others before the passing of the Act of 1887. My noble Friend did not take the trouble to tell the House what is the relative number of those persons to whom this Bill would apply, whose tenancies were determined before the Act of 1881. And the Commission which the Government appointed do not appear to have investigated that question either. Neither did they enter into an investigation about the importance and the relative number of those persons whose cases might not be dealt with under the Arrears Act of 1882. When my noble Friend tells the House in a sweeping manner that in his opinion all those tenants have a grievance, we are entitled to ask him what view he takes of by far the largest number of cases which would be dealt with under this Bill. What is his view of the grievance under which the Plan of Campaign evicted tenants suffer? What is the exact nature of their grievance against their landlords who have had the courage to act upon the rights which exceptional legislation of this class may have conferred upon them, or is their grievance mainly and principally against those whose advice, in an evil hour, they decided to follow? If my noble Friend thinks that that is a matter for a grievance I would ask him whether, in his opinion, that is a just grievance? It seems to me it is necessary, in considering this Bill, that we should give more attention than we are invited to do by my noble Friend to the principles on which this Bill is founded. It is not a question merely of the amount of benefit which may be conferred on some persons, or, the amount of injustice which may be

  895
  inflicted upon others. It is not only a question of healing sores and of making the government of Ireland more easy, or, on the other hand, raising fresh difficulties for the government of Ireland. It is a question of the use which hereafter, perhaps at no distant date, may be made of the principles contained in this Bill. We have recently had an example of the use which may be made of principles to which you may give your assent by reading this Bill a second time. Mr. Morley, on some occasion—I think in introducing the Bill—said that there was not a principle contained in this measure for which some precedent could not be found in the land legislation for Ireland, and that condition, broadly put forward by Mr. Morley, has been made use of by other advocates of the Bill. The free sale provisions of the Act of 1881 have been brought forward by my noble Friend (the Lord Privy Seal) as a precedent for imposing on the landlord the tenancy of persons to whom he objects. But the free sale provisions of the Act of 1881 simply enabled the transfer of an existing tenancy to take place, and in the case of that transfer no doubt it was provided that the Laud Commission could judge whether the land-lord acted in a reasonable spirit or not. But that precedent is now to be turned into giving power to force upon the landlord a tenant who has no present connection with the tenancy—who is not, indeed, an absolute stranger, but who is, in the point of view of the landlord, a tenant a great deal worse than an absolute stranger, for of him he knows that either through inability or ill-will he has been unable or has refused to comply with the statutory conditions of his tenancy. The Arrears Act of 1882 has been brought forward as a precedent, but the Act of 1882 contained no provision for the compulsory reinstatement of the tenant, except such tenants as might be conceived to have a legal interest in their holdings, who were still in occupation of the holding, or who had not forfeited their right to redemption. The Bent Redemption Act of 1879 and the Land Purchase Act Of 1891 have been, over and over again, cited as the germ of this Bill, but that provision was of a voluntary and a non-compulsory character. It was not a provision for the reinstatement of the tenant at all. It is a provision to enable the tenant to return to his
  896
  holding on terms. The 13th clause of the Act, as has often been pointed out, was intended to get rid of a difficulty which lay in the way of a tenant and a landlord who were willing to come to an agreement—to get rid of the necessity of a physical reinstatement as a preliminary to purchase by a tenant who had left his holding. When precedents like these are quoted in support of a proposal to put back on the owner of the soil a tenant who has defied him, who has forfeited by his own act the protection conferred on him by a long series of Acts framed for his benefit; when it is proposed to make these precedents for putting back such a tenant in a better position than those who have not forfeited their tenancy, we must be careful how we accept this measure or assent to such principles. What are the principles in this Bill? I will refer to three or four principles which are found within the four corners of the Bill—principles which, as I have said, may be held to be precedents for future legislation. This Bill contains the principle that the payment of rent, even of a judicial rent, is not a necessary incident of an Irish tenancy. That, I think, is a proposition which cannot be denied. It is not denied that this Bill will apply to a tenant who has failed to comply with the conditions of his tenancy; and in a great many cases they have failed to comply with those conditions. Another principle which I find in the Bill is that it is to be decreed by a Court of Law that a tenancy which has ceased and determined by the failure of the tenant to comply with one or other of the statutory conditions of the tenancy is not binding. The tenant has a moral, which may be converted into a legal, right to reinstatement, whatever may be the cause which led to the determination of his tenancy. Another principle which is contained in this Bill is that by no lapse of time can a landlord acquire the right to the occupancy of his own land so long as there is in existence a tenant or the representative of a tenant who had been at one time in the occupation of the holding. Another principle is, that the landlord, no matter what amount of capital and labour which he may have expended on his holding—that his right is an inferior one to the right of the prior tenant, who may have no direct connection with the; tenancy at all.

  897
  Another principle is that the former tenant who has failed to comply with the conditions of his tenancy has a better primâ facia right to the occupation of the tenancy than the present tenant who has complied with all the statutory conditions of his tenancy. These are a few of the principles contained in the Bill—principles which from experience we know will form the foundation for future demands, and before we pass this Bill we should require a very strong and urgent case for the necessity of such a, measure. There is something in this Bill which I must describe as characteristic. Attention has already been called to the extraordinary vagueness of the language and the extraordinary amount of discretion and responsibility which is conferred on the Arbitrators under this Bill in the exercise of the functions intrusted to them. That vagueness is not denied by the authors of the Bill. My noble Friend (Lord Spencer) last night referred to it, and he was positively enamoured with the vagueness and the wideness of its terms. He found in that vagueness and the undefined character of the instructions to the Arbitrators the chief beauty and merit of this measure. He quoted cases in which the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary had lately successfully dealt with disputes between employers and labourers; but I think my noble Friend somewhat overlooks the wide and essential distinctions between arbitration and conciliation. The Prime Minister had not and never assumed to have the power of compelling the colliery owners to pay a certain rate of wages, nor did he assume to tell the workmen what wages they should accept. All that my noble Friend set himself to do was to bring the two parties together, and to see whether a way might be found by which, with their mutual assent, they could settle their differences. I do not recollect whether the arbitration which was undertaken by the Home Secretary in the case of the cab-strike proceeded at all on different lines; but if the Home Secretary had power or undertook to settle absolutely the rates which should in future be paid for the hire of cabs, it could only be done by the voluntary submission of each of the parties. I believe you will find no precedent in the legislation of this Parliament, whether
  898
  Irish or other, in which, as between non-assenting parties, such responsibility and wide discretion has been committed to any judicial persons, not even the highest Judges of the land. It might be said that there is such a thing as equitable jurisdiction, but even Judges in equity, administering questions affecting rights, act on a long series of precedents and Judgments, which form as complete a code, though possibly a more elastic one, than that contained in the Statute Book in express words. But where in this case are the precedents which are to guide the persons on whom you confer this enormous jurisdiction? What are the precedents which are to guide the Arbitrators in deciding whether the conduct of the tenants was reasonable or unreasonable in accepting the advice of Mr. Dillon or Mr. O'Brien in demanding a reduction of 20, 30, or 40 per cent, on their rents? What precedents are to guide them in saying whether the landlord was reasonable or unreasonable in refusing to make such reductions? Or if they find, as probably they would be likely to do in a great many cases, both that the tenants have boon unreasonable in demanding too much, and that the landlord may have been unreasonable in conceding too little, and that there was nothing but a balance of unreasonableness on both sides—in such a case as that what is the decision they are to arrive at; what are the scales in which they are to weigh the balance of reasonableness and unreasonableness on the side of one party or the other? I say there is no precedent for enabling any body of men to set aside, for the benefit of one party, the rights which another possesses under the law; to confer upon the other party rights which no law has ever conferred upon them. I say again, when we know, as we do know, that this precedent may, and probably will be used for still further legislation, we are bound to hesitate before we give our consent to a, measure which, in my opinion, shakes to its very foundation every right, not only of property, but of every other character which depends on submission to the law and upon the Statute Book. Where is the justification—where is the urgent necessity—for this measure? I believe the following figures, obtained from the Report of the Mathew Commission, are substantially accurate and

  899
  are accepted by my noble Friend. The claims which came before the Mathew Commission were—from 17 estates into which they specially inquired, 1,403; from all other estates, 2,755. I am informed that it appears from one of the Appendices that the 2,755 claims represent less than 2 per cent, of claims from each of these estates—cases which always will appear in every country from improvident or thriftless tenants being unable to pay their rents and being obliged to abandon their holdings. The urgency of the case, therefore, depends almost entirely on the Plan of Campaign estates. The Mathew Commission found that on the 17 selected estates the 1,403 tenants represented 1,350 holdings, and of these 409 had been either re-let or purchased by the old tenants. Since the Commission reported a Parliamentary Paper had been issued, on July 26 of the present year, which shows that since the inquiry in 1892 there have been 25 new evictions on these 17 estates; and, on the other hand, there have been 128 additional reinstatements. Thus it appears that in two years 14 per cent of reinstatements by purchase or otherwise are going on even on the Plan of Campaign estates. My Lords, it is absolutely certain that this process would have been more rapid, and would now become more rapid, if the evicted tenants on these estates had not been buoyed up by the hope of some exceptional and unjust legislation such as this. It was admitted, I believe, in the discussions in the other House by some of the advocates of the Bill that a voluntary measure would admit nine-tenths of the cases which have to be dealt with. Under these circumstances, I ask what justification is there for bringing forward a compulsory measure founded on the principles to which I have referred? My noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty says that compulsion is only contained in the first clause. I will ask in a moment whether that is quite an accurate statement of the case; but, assuming its accuracy for the present, upon what principle is that compulsion to be applied to the landlords? You talk of the necessity of compelling the landlord—a necessity which may exist—to bring back a tenant whom he does not like. It is not merely the case of bringing back a tenant whom the landlord does not like; it is a case of bringing back a tenant who was
  900
  unable or else refused to pay his rent, and who probably may be unable or may refuse again to pay his rent. This compulsory provision in the first clause fully justifies the assertion of the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll) that this measure absolutely destroys and abrogates the Act of 1881. Was it or was it not enacted by the Act of 1881 that certain conditions should be attached to the tenancy in return for the privileges conferred upon the tenant? Was it or was it not the case that the payment of certain rent agreed upon or judicially fixed was one of the conditions? When you are creating an irresponsible body, and empowering that body to decide that such breach of the statutory conditions of the Act of 1881 is not to have the consequences which were provided by the Act, I say you are breaking up and repealing that Act just as much as if you conferred upon the same person or some other person the power of depriving any body of tenants arbitrarily selected of the privileges conferred upon them by the Act, such as free sale, fixity of tenure, and the power of obtaining a fair rent. So far as the landlord is concerned, every privilege conferred upon him or left to him by the Act of 1881, and the subsequent Acts is swept away without compensation and without redress. In 1881 Parliament promised the Irish landlord that, in return for the concessions which he was called upon to make, in return for the reduction which he might be called upon to make in his rent, he should enjoy additional security for the rent which remained. Parliament, by the Act of 1881, referred the Irish landlord for that security to the recognised Courts of Law. This Bill is going to supersede the recognised Courts of Law by a tribunal which is not a Court of Law and does not assume to be a Court of Law, but from whose decision there is no appeal. The injustice which may be done to the landlord under this section is of a double character. It may inflict direct loss; it certainly will inflict indirect loss upon him. My noble Friend, Lord Lansdowne, who spoke last night, did not like to bring forward his own case. But I believe it is well-known that he is in occupation of an evicted farm on his estate, and has spent thousands of pounds in stocking and improving it. Under this Bill the former tenant may be forced back into occupa-

  901
  tion, and whatever else that tenant may be, he will be absolutely incapable of taking over the stock or of compensating my noble Friend for his improvements. Grievous is the injury which may be inflicted on the landlord under this provision directly; but the indirect injury is still greater. What inducement in future will any tenant have to pay the rent which has been agreed upon or which has been judicially fixed? He knows that the failure to pay that rent is not a necessary condition or incident of his holding. He knows that the decree of the Court of Law to the effect that his tenancy is determined is not a final decree; and every inducement which existed before will be, if not absolutely destroyed, enormously weakened by the operation of this Bill. I should like to say a word or two with regard to the third clause. I admit that it is provided in that clause that the objection of the new tenant to make way for the old tenant is a bar to further proceedings. Therefore, perhaps it does not contain direct compulsion, but is there no indirect compulsion under the third clause. In the first place, you will enormously weaken the position of the new tenant. You will deprive him of the support of his landlord which he now possesses. The procedure under the clause is between the former tenant, the new tenant, and the Arbitrators; and the landlord is expressly excluded from all part in the proceedings. As matters stand now, the new tenant has the protection that if he can be coerced or induced to quit his holding that may not be followed by the reinstatement of the old tenant without the consent of the landlord, and the inducement to put pressure and coercion on the new tenant is therefore proportionately reduced. But under this Bill you will deprive the new tenant of that protection which his landlord is now able to give him. The new tenant has already in all probability had to withstand strong pressure—the pressure of public opinion, as it is called. He, perhaps, has undergone something more than pressure. He may have had to undergo persecution, and yet he has resisted and remains in possession. In addition to the pressure of an irresponsible body such as the National League, to which he has hitherto been subjected, you are going now to put upon him the pressure of an authorised legal
  902
  tribunal. He will be served with notice that the former tenant has applied to be reinstated in his holding; and he will be told that, in the event of his consenting to give up possession, there will be some compensation for him. Will it not be far more difficult for a new tenant under these circumstances to resist the additional pressure which must be placed upon him than it has been in the past? It is very difficult to understand the effects of these provisions if you do not go a little beyond chaos of technical terms of the Bill. A person described in this Bill as a new tenant is known in Ireland as a land-grabber, and the way in which this Bill will be read will be to read in the word "land-grabber" wherever you find the words "new tenant." Thus—
  "Where the holding referred to in the petition is, in the opinion of the Arbitrator, in the occupation, not of the landlord, but of the land-grabber,"
  —and then the land-grabber is described—
  "all the foregoing provisions of this Act shall apply."
  But if "land-grabber" objects, the Arbitrator shall not make an order for reinstatement. By what right do you call upon the laud-grabber to object? What is he called upon to object to? He is called upon to object to being ejected from a holding of which he is as rightfully and as legally in possession as my noble Friend who brought in this Bill is in possession of his estates. In forcing the new tenant to make objection you are placing upon him an obligation which you have no right to impose. If he does make the objection, he can only sustain it at the cost of renewed pressure and persecution. If this clause contains no element of direct compulsion, it contains all the elements of indirect compulsion, which may be far more difficult to meet than even the severest form of direct compulsion. Mr. Morley has taken credit for having, in spite of the pressure put upon him, refused to turn out the new tenant with-j out his own consent; but it seems to me that it is nothing but an invitation to put the pressure of public opinion, as it is called, or, if public opinion will not serve, the pressure of boycotting, and all the rest of the machinery upon this unhappy man. That is very well understood, and it is not denied by the Irish

  903
  Members. Mr. O'Brien, in the last Debate on the measure, in the other House, said no one doubted that in one way or another the land-grabbers must be induced to give up the holdings they have taken, and unless this Bill contains, in their opinion, the means of inducing them to do this, it would not effect its purpose, and they would not give a "Thank you!" for it. Therefore, not even the removal of compulsion from the landlord would abolish the objections which we entertain to it so long as it contains the inducements to do by illegal pressure and other means that which the Government shrinks from doing by direct legal enactment. The Bill has been spoken of as one of amnesty. It cannot be a measure of amnesty when, by the confession of the Irish Members themselves, the war is not over. The land war in Ireland has always been, and still is, as much a war, perhaps more a war, between the old tenants and the new tenants as between the tenants and the landlords, and the very moment when you are talking of passing a measure of amnesty it is proclaimed by one of the leaders of the Irish tenantry that there will be no peace in Ireland until the land-grabber, by some means or another, is induced to quit his holding. This is not a measure of amnesty; it is a measure which is framed and intended to give victory to one side, and that the defeated side. It is not a measure of amnesty, because it will tend rather to revive the embers of a war which have boon dying out than to extinguish them. Then there is the point as to the unnecessary extension of this Bill to cases which are not connected with eviction at all. The term used in the Bill, "determination of the tenancy," is a term which will apply not only to cases of eviction, but to cases where the tenant has voluntarily left his holding, perhaps owing many years rent, or cases where the tenant has received compensation for giving up his holding, and is now dissatisfied with his bargain. I do not think that any explanation has been given why it should be necessary to deal with cases which are not in any sense connected with eviction. Then there is, in the second clause, the provision forcing on the landlord the acceptance of a tenant who would not have been admitted by the Land Commission. But I will not now deal further with the provisions of the Bill. No one has ever
  904
  been of opinion that this measure could be accepted by this House in its present form. But suggestions have been made—and something like a suggestion was made last night by the First Lord of the Admiralty—that we might pass the Second Reading of the Bill and amend it in Committee. Your Lordships have not received much encouragement from the Government to amend measures in Committee. An instance of that was supplied in the case of the Employers' Liability Bill, where the Amendment was certainly not one which touched the principle of the measure. Nevertheless, it was considered sufficient to justify the Government in abandoning that Bill. My noble Friend asks for a pledge that if the measure be made a voluntary one it would be accepted by the landlords of Ireland. It is impossible for anyone to give a pledge which should bind the whole body of Irish landlords. Mr. Morley, in the other House, was asked to give a similar pledge on the part of the Irish tenants, and he said it was impossible. It is as impossible for any man in this House to give a pledge that will bind the whole of the landlords, as it is for any person in the other House to give a pledge that will bind the whole of the tenants. I did not hear, but I read, and I repeat the offer made by my noble Friend Lord Lansdowne—let the Government show us what Amendments they are prepared to propose themselves, or will accept from us, which would turn the Bill into a voluntary measure which we could accept. I do not believe it can be done. The principle of this Bill is compulsion, and nothing else. It is a Bill drawn throughout on lines leading to compulsion. Every stage of the procedure shows it—from the primã, facie case to the absolute Order itself. The nearest approach we have to a suggestion for a compromise is one contained in the last speech made by Mr. Morley, in the other House, when, in answer to Mr. Kenny, he said that the suggestion that before the Provisional Order of the Arbitrators was made absolute—that was, just before the blow fell—the consent of the landlord should be an indispensable condition, that that raised a point which was worthy of consideration. Look at the position of the landlord, according to Mr. Morley. After all the proceedings have been gone through, and just before the blow falls,

  905
  the landlord may possibly be invested with power to put himself in evidence. Is that a position in which we have a right to place any man who is doing nothing but defending the just rights which your own law has given him? I ask, again, how is it possible to amend a Bill of this kind in this House? We are often reminded that we have not here any Representatives of the Irish tenantry, and I doubt very much whether the Irish Members would be willing to place their case absolutely in the hands of the Members of Her Majesty's Government who sit in this House. If any compromise is to be effected with regard to turning this Bill into a voluntary Bill, it must be done by agreement, and with full and frank acceptance on the part of the Representatives of both landlords and tenants. Her Majesty's Government destroyed all chance of compromise when, in the other House, without any provocation and after only two days' discussion in Committee, they imposed the gag on further consideration. They imposed the gag, not only upon their opponents, but also on their own supporters, and thus, in the only place where agreemeut—if agreement was possible—could be arrived at, they stifled discussion, and so destroyed the last chance of this measure being put in a shape in which it would have been possible for this House to accept it. There is no use in deceiving ourselves, and if we do we certainly shall not deceive anybody else. It is better to look this matter fairly and fully in the face, and see whether there really is any possible ground of agreement. All parties are agreed on this—that there is a strong desire that this difficulty should be settled. But what possible ground has been suggested by Her Majesty's Government upon which a settlement which would remove this sore could be arrived at? What provisions of their measure are they prepared to abandon or what Amendments can they suggest to remove those objections of gravity and importance to which I have referred? Is it possible that any Amendment that the Government could possibly accept, and which did not contain the principle of compulsion, could be moved on the Third Reading, after this Bill has passed through Committee? The principle of this Bill is compulsion exercised by miscalled Arbitrators. We say that there is nothing to arbitrate
  906
  about. Arbitration is a process for deciding upon disputed rights; but there is no dispute as to the legal rights here. The rights are all on one side, and there are none on the other. Probably it would be wise and expedient that one of the parties should, in the interests of peace and order, waive and give up some portion of those undoubted rights; but that is a course not for arbitrators to decide upon, but for conciliators to suggest. As long as your Bill rests upon the principle of compulsion to be exercised by so-called arbitrators I do not see what possibility of agreement or amendment exists. If the Government had been content to follow the real precedent which received the sanction of Parliament and the support of both sides of the House of Commons, I do not think there would have been much difficulty to contend against. Over and over again it has been suggested to the Government that if they would be satisfied with a measure re-enacting the 13th clause of the Land Purchase Act of 1891, without imposing any limit of time—the limit having in the opinion of some prevented the successful operation of that clause—it would not meet with opposition, but with cordial assent. It has been said that the operation of the 13th clause of the Act of 1891 was altogether a failure; but that is not correct, for it had some effect. However, if it were tried again, it would be tried in very different circumstances. Both Parties have now the experience of two years long and bitter struggle, and by the confession of both Parties they are sick and weary of it. Because an enactment failed two years ago, it does not follow that a measure which would give the Parties another opportunity to meet together and to arrive at an amicable settlement would necessarily fail now. Reinstatement by purchase is, in the opinion of almost all who have considered the question, a solution far preferable to that of reinstatement in any other way. Reinstatement by purchase, when it can be effected, is a final and complete settlement, and leaves no ground for friction or dispute between the parties who have been so long opposed to each other. But if you could not be contented with that, you might have added to a Bill founded upon this principle some provision for the appointment of conciliators, men not armed with any com-

  907
  pulsory powers, but having the right to invite all parties—landlords, old tenants, and new tenants—to meet together in order to see whether a settlement of their differences could be arrived at. You might have entrusted to these men the disposal of the funds provided by this Bill. If you were satisfied to try such an experiment as this, I believe that even now a measure embodying it might pass through both Houses of Parliament in a week. If there were any real desire to attempt a solution of this question upon purely voluntary and permissive lines, it would be far simpler and more rational to start with a clean sheet, and to introduce a new measure, than to endeavour to engraft upon the principle of this compulsory Bill provisions which are essentially at variance with it. We know the difficulties in which the Government are placed, partly in consequence of the conduct of some of their allies, and partly in consequence of the conduct of some of their own Members when they were in a position of greater freedom and less responsibility. Well, the Unionist Party would willingly have met the Government half-way if the latter had been willing to accept any basis upon which a real agreement could be arrived at. This measure, however, will do much more to disturb Ireland than to settle the difficulties there. Believing that it contains principles which are fatal to the foundations of law and order and to peace and prosperity in Ireland, and indirectly also to peace and prosperity in the rest of the United Kingdom, I say on my own behalf and on behalf of those with whom I am politically connected, that it is impossible for us to give our assent to the Second Reading of this Bill.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, very few even of the strongest supporters of this measure can have listened to the speech of the noble Duke without serious searchings of heart and without feeling great anxiety to reconsider the question as to whether they have not given their support to a Bill full of mischief and peril. This Bill has been presented to your Lordships as one of great urgency in regard to a social and administrative difficulty in Ireland. But that contention cannot be maintained in face of the facts and figures bearing on the matter. Surely, my Lords, the acts of the Government itself are entirely op-
  908
  posed to any such notion. If the question was urgent, if it was one of acute emergency, what was the justification of the Government for waiting two years before they brought in the Bill, and for only having brought it in at the fag-end of the Session, and then not voluntarily at all, but because they were coerced by the pressure of their political supporters from Ireland? Why was it not introduced in the voluntary shape which the noble Duke has pointed out, which, in the opinion of all reasonable people, would have settled at least nine-tenths of the cases likely to arise under this Bill. It is unnecessary to go again through the figures given with so much clearness and significance by the noble Duke. Those figures demonstrate the hollowness of the claim to urgency. Since May, 1879, there have been about 35,000 evictions. Mr. Morley calculates that less than 4,000 would apply under this Bill—and this includes the Plan of Campaign tenants. The real fact that has caused the introduction of this Bill is the existence of 860 evicted tenants representing the Plan of Campaign, who are now supported by other people. That is a grave and significant fact. But what proportion does this figure of 860 bear to the total number of tenants in Ireland? A fraction less than 1 per cent. There are 2,700 tenants included in Mr. Morley's 4,000 over and above the Plan of Campaign tenants, and they are to be found not in plague spots of which Lord Spencer spoke, but scattered over 1,639 estates in Ireland. There have been less than two evictions in 15 years on each of these 1,639 estates. On 1,200 out of these 1,639 estates there has not been more than one on each during the 15 years. What, then, becomes of the administrative urgency and emergency which the noble Earl had to make out in order to prove the justification for this Bill? Why, England, Scotland, and Wales will show a much larger figure of evictions than those 1,200 estates that are to be made the prey of this Bill. It is said that we should send a message of peace to Ireland. Yes, but send it at your own expense, and not at the expense of others without proving that you have a right to regard them and to treat them as outlaws. It is all very well to speak about a message of peace, about amnesty, and letting bygones be bygones, but do not let these things be all on one side.

  909
  You appeal to the landlords to be generous, considerate, and to send a message of peace; but where is the amnesty for the landlords? Take the case of the new tenants, and then consider your phrase about a message of peace, a truce, and the bringing of parties together. Where has there been a whisper on the part of those who are entitled to speak for the evicted tenants of a suggestion that if 99 per cent. are to be restored to farms now held by new tenants, that that will save the peace and quiet of the one man who may remain in possession? This is not a Bill of conciliation; it is really a Bill of coercion. It is a Bill to try to pay off political scores. The farmers of Ireland, not for the first time, have been made the cats-paw of agitators; and if this Bill, in payment of political scores, framed as it is, should pass into law, never again could any laud combination or agitation be resisted in Ireland by the landlords or anyone else. I am an Irishman myself, and I am not incapable of realising the wishes and the feelings of even those to whom I am opposed. I do not object to a feeling of sympathy, and I desire conciliation. I have never taken up au attitude of non possumus about any reasonable measure, and having it dealt with in any reasonable way; but this is not a reasonable measure. The main argument of the Government is that if they make any proposal to Parliament, and if they only call it "a message of peace," that we are to shut our eyes to all the injustices it may contain, and pass it without a murmur. My Lords, this Bill has been deliberately framed on impossible lines, and without any analogy to any Statute that has ever been passed in this House or in the Parliament of any other civilised country. No process of evolution can get from the germs that are to be found in any earlier Act of Parliament even a hint of the developments contained in this Bill. There has been talk about the Arrears Act and Section 13 of the Act of 1891. I will not discuss them; the analogies are not arguable. I venture to say absolutely that this Bill is without a precedent in the past, although it will make a precedent fraught with most deadly peril for the future. The Bill has been framed to embody the principle of compulsion, and the voluntary principle has been deliberately set aside.
  910
  It is the Government who say throughout "Non possumus"; they repudiate the voluntary principle. As it has been framed the Bill is founded on force, on compulsion, and on coercion, which are against every principle of law, every dictate of equity, and to use the word "justice" in connection with it is absolutely absurd. We are asked to affirm these principles by giving the Bill a Second Reading. But, sorry though I am to have to do it—for I would have preferred a different Bill—I will oppose the Second Reading, because I believe the Bill to be unjust, perilous, and impossible. What is an evicted tenant? He is a man who owes at least one year's rent, and who far more often in Ireland owes two, three, four, or five years' rent, and is then evicted by his landlord. Like every man, the landlord has his family to maintain and his obligations to meet; and if he cannot get his rent, he has a right at all events to his land. It is not suggested that this social and administrative difficulty has been brought about by harsh or unjust landlords; it is not suggested that this Bill is to be confined to harsh and unjust evictions. I heard with regret a statement made by Lord Spencer yesterday when he said, "I am not one of those who condemn the whole body of Irish landlords." What did he mean? Nobody knows the landlords of Ireland better than the noble Earl, and yet, in effect, he says, with a most magnificent appearance of generosity—
  "I will not condemn the whole body of them, because there are some that are not so bad."
  I denounce this as a statement which ought never to have been made in this House. Mr. Gladstone, when bringing in the Land Act of 1881, which followed the Bessborough Commission, on which it was founded, said that the landlords of Ireland had been tried, and in the main they had been acquitted; and in face of that statement it was monstrous for a Minister who had been twice Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to utter out of his generosity the statement that he would not condemn, forsooth! the whole body of landlords in Ireland. I suppose you do not wish to make the landlords of Ireland outlaws? I suppose you consider that this Bill is founded on justice, though you have had the modesty not to say it? At all events, if any noble Lords can satisfy their consciences that

  911
  this is a Bill founded on justice, let them remember the noble words of Mr. Gladstone, who, in describing what justice was, said, "When I say justice, I mean justice to all." Those words should not be forgotten even in the case of the landlords of Ireland. What are the Land Laws of Ireland? Are they harsh and unjust? The landlords are not above the law; they have to live under it and to obey it; and they can only administer it. Is the law they administer harsh and unjust? I assert, not for the first time with reference to these questions, that the Land Laws of Ireland are the most generous, the most considerate, the most widely liberal to tenants that can be found in the whole habitable globe. Can anyone question that? If you do, yon cannot, know what the Land Laws are, because I assert that not in democratic America, not in Republican France, not in free England are laws so generous and considerate to tenants as are to be found in Ireland. For 25 years law after law has been passed in favour of the tenants and against the landlords. You have got the Statute of 1870, which provided compensation for improvements and disturbance; you have the Act of 1881, enabling tenants for the asking to get an independent authority to measure their rents; you have got the Act of 1887, which enables the tenant about to be evicted to ask for a stay of execution, and to be permitted to pay by instalments. I ask you who know English laws—Have you anything like these considerate measures in England, or have you heard of anything like them in any other country? When all their rights have been interfered with, there is one supreme right left to the landlords of Ireland which enables them to enjoy any fair play at all. In the supreme resort they have left the right of eviction, jealously guarded round, and enabling the tenant to be protected at every step of the process; and it is only after the landlord has satisfied every claim of the Court that he is entitled to evict. This guarded right of eviction, left by the Irish Code, is now to be done away with by summoning into existence a mushroom, a fungus tribunal, which will have the power of sweeping away the decrees of Courts in the highest matters. These are matters worthy of grave consideration before you
  912
  coerce the Irish landlords to act as this Bill directs. Whenever a landlord has been driven to evict under the law, in order to enable himself and his family to live, is it not indefensible to coerce him, against his will, and without compensation, to undo what the law with all these safeguards has permitted him to do? It would be a farce, if it were not a tragedy, to reflect on the position in which you put the landlord. My Lords, the evicted tenants belong to two great classes: those who would pay and could not, and those who could pay and would not. I give my sympathy at once to all, and particularly to the first class. But does one of your Lordships think that it is commiseration for the men who would pay and could not which has caused this Bill to be brought in? I do not believe there is a man in this House who would suggest that this Bill would have been brought in if it had not been for the class of tenants who could pay and would not. There are many categories of evicted tenants to be spoken of without harshness and with great sympathy. To the honest but insolvent tenants, to the wretched dupes of the Plan of Campaign who yielded either to intimidation or through cowardice, he would be a hardhearted man who denied sympathy. But there is another class—the active supporters and ringleaders of the Plan of Campaign, the boycotters who have done everything to resist eviction, to prevent farms from being taken, and to make the landlord's life a burden. I do not say that human feeling may not be given even to them, or that now, in their wretchedness, they are not entitled to consideration. But we know that it is just this last class of ringleaders, agitators, and cordial supporters of the Plan of Campaign who are the moving spirits of this Bill, and not the poor and deserving classes of tenants. I do not say put them outside the pale of consideration. Let their landlord, if he pleases, no matter what their errors may have been, enter into negotiations with them. But do not coerce him. Leave him to do what he thinks fair. Is it not a strong measure to give exceptional rewards, not to the best, but to the worst tenants? And surely it is a cruel injustice to compel the landlord to receive back without any compensation those who for years made his life a burden and kept

  913
  his farms vacant. What would be the relation of the parties under such a blessed message of peace? What would be the demeanour of the tenant who got back in spite of his landlord? What sort of a "time-of-day" would he give the landlord when he met him on the roadside? My Lords, the topic of the new tenants has been dealt with so fully and with such power by the noble Duke who preceded me that I do not feel justified in saying more about it. The new tenants are put in a painful and shabby position. They are in possession of property just as much theirs as any of your Lordships' property is yours, and it is unfair that they should be asked to give it up. This question, my Lords, is very serious—it may involve terrible consequences to life and limb. Then there is this strange, this curious, this startling tribunal. I decline to discuss those gentlemen who have consented to act under the Bill; but it is ludicrous to call them Arbitrators. Arbitrators are people of whom each side has had the power of exercising some choice, and in whom each side has confidence. But these men are selected by a Government which has shown itself to be throughout the political opponent of the landlords. It is idle to expect that when you baptise them Arbitrators you get over all the suspicion which must attach to their works. They might be called a triumvirate, except that one generally associates that name with proscription lists. I will call them undertakers or dispensers, or anything but Arbitrators. The most odious occurrences in English history have been the efforts of Sovereigns to arrogate to themselves the power of dispensing with our laws. No Minister would ever dare to do it. But what the Government have not dared to do directly they seek to do indirectly by the dispensers whom by this Bill they appoint for two years to dispense with every law. The noble Earl who introduced this Bill curiously omitted to mention a single one of the difficulties which have been discussed for many days past elsewhere. I have to state one not previously noted. Anyone would think, from reading the Bill and listening to the speech of the noble Earl, that this triumvirate were to have the power, acting together, of administering justice or injustice. It
  914
  is curious, too, that the name of Mr. White is commonly put forward, being an eminent Queen's Counsel of the Irish Bar, as if he would be always present. But it has not yet been stated by any supporter of the Bill that it is not at all necessary that these three men should act together, and that each one of them has the power of doing everything in this Bill by himself and unaided. Is it not startling that it should be reserved for the second day of the Debate to state a fact which is of the greatest importance? Surely even a Member of the Government would shrink from trusting whichever they think the least capable of these men to make orders by himself against the landlords of Ireland, it may be, for their ruin and against the new tenants, it may be, to the danger of their lives. That is a very serious matter, and, I venture to think, is absolutely indefensible. As to the primâ, facie case, I would ask Lord Chancellor two plain questions. The triumvirate are to be satisfied that there is a primâ facie case for reinstatement, "having regard to the circumstances of the district." What is the meaning of that? I will not be put off with the statement that that is left to the Arbitrators. I have a right to know the opinion of the Government as to the meaning of their own words. What is the meaning of "having regard to the circumstances of the district?" Do they mean that if a neighbourhood is quiet and peaceful, with everbody obeying the law, that fact is to influence a decision in favour of a primâ facie case? There is another question equally plain. Does it mean that if the district has been disturbed and lawless, if the tenant has gone out with difficulty, if he has lived in a Campaign hut, if the place has been kept in disturbance by constant boycott and outrage, that those are circumstances intended to be in favour of the tenant? Or are they circumstances intended to be in favour of the landlord? Are the circumstances of a district that has been marked by crime and outrage to induce the Arbitrators to say that a primâ facie case has been made out? I have asked a very plain question; and I must not be put off by being told that it is for the Arbitrators to decide. The Arbitrators cannot be abler men than the Lord Chancellor sitting here. They have no right to claim clearer opinions on this

  915
  question than the Government who have put those words into the Bill. My question, then, is plain. What view are they to take of a quiet district or a disturbed district? Then they are to have regard to "the circumstances under which the eviction took place." What is the meaning of that? If a tenant went out quietly, and if he gave no trouble, would that help to make out a prima facie case? If he went out with violence and caused great trouble in the district, would that make out a, prima facie case? These are important and even vital questions, and I think I am entitled to have a clear answer. My Lords, these three men are certainly put in a very curious position. They are to decide what is a primâ facie case on the petition of the evicted tenant without any communication with the landlord, and without any evidence. I have an infinite respect for my own countrymen. At all events, in Ireland there is a great power of imagination and a very nice literary skill; and if you are to tell the tenants that they have only to make a primâ facie case, a common form of statement will be prepared in which circumstances of the district and circumstances of the eviction will be stated which will bring tears to the eyes of the Arbitrators. Then the Arbitrators have to consider whether the conduct of the landlord and tenant has been reasonable or unreasonable. Take the tenant first. What is the meaning of unreasonable conduct on the part of the tenant? Suppose that the tenant has been evicted; that he has had a fair rent fixed at his own motion; that he owes several years' arrears; that he has resisted eviction; that he has helped to keep the neighbourhood in a state of crime and lawlessness, will the Arbitrators at once decide that this conduct was unreasonable and that the man must go about his business? You will remember that men guilty of this conduct were the men most active in keeping up the agitation. Is it expected that the Arbitrators will decide against him, and declare that he has been guilty of unreasonable conduct? If this were a voluntary Bill and the tenant was guilty of unreasonable conduct, I would say nothing against the landlord if he thought proper to condone the tenant's conduct and forgive his errors as a matter of conciliation; but under
  916
  this Bill you compel the landlord, whether he likes it or not, without compensation, to put back the tenant guilty of such conduct. Then the Arbitrators are to take into account the unreasonable conduct of the landlord. What does that mean? The landlord must be credited with clear legal rights. Then if he has exercised his clear legal rights how can it be said that he has acted unreasonably? My Lords, the truth is that this Bill proceeds on the assumption that there is a justice higher than the justice of the law; and that there is an equity greater than has been recognised by any Court, by any Statute, or by any Parliament. My Lords, this Bill is a grave and serious lesson to the tenants of Ireland. It is a serious teaching for them. We are told to trust the Arbitrators. That is a terrible doctrine. I will not discuss the personnel of this body, but it is a terrible thing to ask men to give up the protection of the law and place themselves at the mercy of the untried discretion of these three men. Any system of law is better than the chance or accident by which a despot may do what is fair. Suppose that the landlord has been changed after the eviction—that a new landlord has come in by purchase; that he has given a higher price for the land because there are no tenants on the land. He has been no party to the evictions. He never knew the tenants. What a monstrous thing to force on him tenants of whom he knows nothing, and wants to know nothing! Then, again, take a case in which three men may have occupied the farm and have been evicted successively in the course of the 15 years? How are the Arbitrators to decide which of the three claimants is to get the farm? But what is to become of the farm and the rent in those cases? Bishop Healy, examined before the Mathew Commission, said there was little good in restoring men who had nothing; a large proportion of these men will be insolvent. I could understand your encouraging voluntary settlements, but how are the men to work the farm on this system? How is the rent to be paid? The rent would not be paid. Then the evictions would take place again, and the whole of the neighbourhood would be in a state of turmoil. Again, there would be "a social administrative difficulty," which is a euphemism

  917
  for making a hell of the neighbourhood. Then another Mr. Morley would bring in another Bill, and he would be able to say truly this time that there is a precedent in the Act which Parliament had been mad enough to pass in 1894. Under this process rent will vanish; there will be no new tenants, and the landlords will all come to grief. My Lords, this is not a purely Irish question. Do not let Englishmen and Scotchmen think that they can do this grievous injustice to the landlords of Ireland without its coming home to them to disturb their own property and their own arrangements. My Lords, the more this Bill is examined the more will it be found to be based on injustice and coercion. A landlord may have been in possession of a farm for five or six years, and may have spent a large sum of money in improvements. The tenant may have surrendered the farm and been compensated, and yet that tenant is to be permitted to be restored against the will of the landlord and without compensation. These are powers absolutely unknown to the law. These Arbitrators will have power to overrule the Lord Chancellor, the High Court, and Mr. Justice Monroe (the Land Judge) in their decisions with regard to land in Ireland. The Arbitrators will want to be very clever indeed to carry out their duties. They will have to decide the most complicated matters that men have ever been asked to decide. But there is another most important point. I heard the noble Earl who introduced the Bill give utterance to a statement; but I have to confess with shame that I did not realise the full significance of that statement until I read it in The Times this morning. I could hardly grasp the meaning of the words when I heard them, because the noble Earl has an air of making a statement as if there was no particular monstrosity wrapped up in what he is saying. The noble Earl said that the restored tenants may apply to have a fair rent fixed. The noble Earl is not the first man who has been ruined by his reasons. He gave as his reason that the farm might be then out of condition, and that it would not be reasonable to compel a tenant in such circumstances to pay the same rent as before. What on earth do these words mean? You first compel the landlord, by reason of rent not being paid, to resume
  918
  possession of the farm; the tenant then, by intimidation and boycotting, prevents the farm being taken, and makes it almost worthless; and then, when the farm is at its worst, you compel the landlord, against his will, to give back the land to the tenant who, by conspiracy with others, has made it worthless; and you give the tenant power to have a fair rent fixed upon the basis of its present worthless condition, and that rent is the rent which the landlord is to get for the next 15 years. The manner of the noble Earl did not disclose the hideous injustice of the proposition he was laying down. The noble Earl illustrated his statement that compulsion was necessary in a curious manner. He said that he was in Ireland when the Westmeath Act—one of the most powerful Coercion Acts ever passed—was in operation; and that he found, even in the most disturbed districts, that settlements were more brought about by the adjustments of the difficulties of landlords and tenants than by the Act. Yes, but did he forget that in those cases the voluntary action of the landlords did it all? My Lords, some reference was made by Lord Tweedmouth last night to the miners' strike, where the parties came together. Do you mean to suggest that this Bill is within 100 miles of that analogy? I would like to know what the mine-owners would say if they were treated to a Bill like this—a Bill placing compulsion on one side and leaving the other side free, and that other side which is free having the appointment of the arbitrators to carry out their behests. I would be pleased to see conciliation carried out by independent men assisted by public money, and I believe in my heart that if there were such an effort of conciliation, worked by an independent body, assisted even to the extent proposed in this Bill by public money, it would practically do everything that is needed to get over what is called the difficulty of the present position. I am happy to think that even without this Bill settlements are going on. No matter what happens to this Bill, settlements will go on; and I was glad to hear a statement yesterday that on the Olphert estate there have been 75 settlements since August last, and further settlements are going on every week. What are the teachings of this Bill? In the first place, it will teach that rent

  919
  need not longer be paid in Ireland; the payment of rent will become a mere precarious benevolence. Good tenants who have paid their way in bad times will be discouraged; no evicted farm will again be taken, for no new tenant will appear again on the horizon. It will reward a criminal conspiracy who have encouraged resistance to the law. It teaches that tenants have only to break the law boldly enough and long enough to ensure that the law will be changed so as to bring it into harmony with their wishes. In common with many others, I have looked to the development of the purchase system as the true solution of the agrarian question in Ireland; but this Bill strikes a paralysing blow at that system. It makes serious alterations in its provisions; it makes exceptions where there should be uniformity. Once the owner tells the Arbitrators that he wishes to sell he is asked no further questions. He is not at liberty to name his price nor to reject their price; he hands the whole thing over to them to deal with at their absolute discretion. The tenant is the only person who has the right to say, if he does not like the price, the thing is off. Is that fair? Is that the way to encourage confidence in the Purchase Code? But worse than all this remains to be told. This is the first time you propose to fix prices by public officials in the purchase system. That is an appalling change. What a vista of dissatisfaction does it open up! Take the Ponsonby estate. On that estate there have been 100 sales at 17½ years' purchase between landlord and tenant, and, if this Bill passed, about the same number more might be possibly expected to buy. But now the price is to be fixed not by negotiations between landlord and tenant, not even by the Land Commission, but by three men appointed ad hoc. I will assume that they fix something under 17½ years' purchase—say 15 years' purchase. What is the position? The 100 tenants who by voluntary action consented to give the 17½ years' purchase will be savagely disappointed, and there will be an immediate agitation for revision of terms. Of the 17 Campaign estates there are seven on which sales under the Purchase Acts have taken place. If this strange new tribunal should now fix prices for the purchases
  920
  by re-instated tenants on these same seven estates at lower rates, the previous purchasers will have a sense of wrong and grievance. The Government are becoming the largest landowners in Ireland; and supposing there should be any movement against payment of the instalments of the purchase-money, and the Government should be driven to exercise the supreme power of eviction, where under this Bill, if it passes, would they get purchasers—where would they get new tenants? If this Bill passes, the Treasury, who are supposed never to be asleep—I wonder how they let this Bill pass—the Treasury, who represent the interest of the creditor State in this matter, will have allowed a grave invasion of the State's security and have struck a serious blow at the whole land purchase system of Ireland. My Lords, this Bill is not final; it does not purport to provide for all the evicted tenants; the tribunal must refuse many applications, and the Bill does not touch future evictions. The Government have erred with their eyes open. The Bill cannot be defended. The noble Earl spoke in the language of warning about its rejection; but the Bill has not been argued, and it cannot be defended. It has been deliberately framed on impossible lines, and I decline to vote for its Second Reading because I regard it as dangerous in principle, unjust, and not final, mischievous in its details, and opposed to the best interests of the tenants of Ireland.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HEKSCHELL): Whatever may be said with regard to the want of opportunity in the other House of stating the objections to this measure, I do not think it can be said that there has been any lack of opportunity in this House, or that full advantage has not been taken of the opportunity. My noble and learned Friend who has just spoken complained that this Bill had not been argued, and could not be defended. Of course, if it cannot be defended there is no use of my attempting to defend it. I am quite persuaded of this: that, however well I may establish that the Bill is founded on just and sound principles, it will not shake the confidence of my noble Friend in his statement that it has received no defence at all. Much hard language has been used about the Bill. "Hideous injustice" and other expressions have been used to

  921
  describe its character. I confess that nowadays I am absolutely indifferent to the use of language of that description. It does not touch me in the slightest degree, and I will tell your Lordships why. I have heard proposals denounced as robbery and confiscation, and within a few months I have seen these proposals embodied in a measure and passed by this House at the instance of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition. And of this I am confident: that if this Bill in substance were introduced, as, perchance, in the chances of life it is possible it may be, by the noble Marquess in this House, it would be accepted with as little objection as the other measures to which I have referred. We were told before this Bill had reached this House and whilst it was in another place, by a letter written at the instance of the noble Marquess, that its rejection was almost certain to be moved because of the manner in which it had been dealt with by the other House. We have heard some allusions to-night, though not to the same extent as might have been anticipated from that summons to noble Lords, as to the manner in which it was dealt with. Can anyone have listened to this Debate without being certain that if the measure had been discussed, instead of for a week or two, for a month or two in the other House, it would have been rejected with as much contempt as it is going to be to-night? What is the suggestion made? That the Representatives of the people were to be kept in the other House, at the instance of a Party in that House, debating and discussing and wasting time which to many of them is precious and valuable, and that at the last, when they had accomplished their labours, that was to be done which was resolved upon at the outset—namely, the Bill was to be rejected with contempt. We are told that the attempt to avoid this is what is bringing degradation upon the proceedings of the House of Commons. I can conceive no greater degradation than that the other House, the Representatives of the people, should be occupied day after day listening to speeches repeated over and over and over again, not with the intention of convincing anyone, not with the idea that they were to have any effect on the Bill, but in order that other legislation might be delayed or rendered
  922
  impossible, it being announced and gloried in beforehand that this House, whatever might be the result in the other House, would cast the Bill to the winds. That seems to me as deep a depth of degradation as any to which the House of Commons could descend. I am second to none in my desire that the honour of the other House should be maintained. The constituencies will know and will judge what best maintains the honour of the other House—that discussion should be reasonable and fair, and directed to the measure in hand, or that it should have a secondary purpose, not with the view of improving the measure, not even with the view of expressing an opinion on the measure, but with the view of using one measure as a machine to prevent other measures which you dislike still more from being dealt with. I think it is noteworthy that in this Debate we have listened to two noble Lords—the noble Duke to-night, and the noble Marquess of Lansdowne last night—distinguished Members of the Party called the Liberal Unionist Party—neither of whom has made the slightest allusion to the fact, as being a matter which ought to weigh with this House for an instant, that this measure comes to us with the sanction of the Commons House of Parliament. It is treated as a matter of absolute indifference. Your Lordships have been invited to consider this Bill, discuss its provisions, and reject it to-night as though it had never been heard of elsewhere. It may be that the judgment of the other House is not to be treated as conclusive here, but it is something new to hear from those who call themselves Liberals such treatment of a measure coming sanctioned by the majority of the other House as this measure has received. The noble Duke, on a former occasion, said there were times when this House would stand firm, and, notwithstanding the passage of a measure by the other House, should, none the less, reject it. On that occasion he maintained that this House ought to weigh well before rejecting a measure which had been passed by the House of Commons, and at that time he dwelt upon the reasons peculiar to that Bill, which certainly do not apply to this, why regard should not be had to a measure which the other House had passed. It seems to me that this is a new attitude, and I doubt

  923
  very much whether it will be found to be an attitude tending to the advantage and stability of this House. The noble Duke began his speech by saying that he had never heard a Bill introduced with so little attempt to establish a case for it, and yet, at the conclusion of his speech, he spoke of removing dangers and healing sores. He seemed then, at last, to recognise that there was indeed some case for it, even if he did not consider the case sufficient. What is the meaning of talking of removing danger unless danger there be, or of healing sores unless sores existed which may produce dangerous and mischievous consequences? And is there any ground in the interest of Ireland for introducing the Bill? I do not for a moment imagine that the opinion of the present Chief Secretary for Ireland will have any weight with your Lordships. Yet it has been admitted by a Conservative Irish Member that he has been distinguished in the administration of the country by firmness and consistency, and that the results are such as have been desired. On his responsibility, having charge of that country, he has expressed in the strongest terms the opinion that this measure is called for in the interests of peace and order in Ireland. But I pass by an authority of that description, which I know will not weigh a featherweight with the majority of your Lordships. I will come to an authority which I think you must pay respect to. What said the late Chief Secretary for Ireland—
  "He did not think there was any justification for saying that the Unionist Party, as the result of their opposition to the Bill, had set their faces against any plan which would tend towards solving what he admitted to be a very great difficulty in Ireland."
  What said another authority? No one knows the disturbed parts of Ireland better than Mr. Carson. There was not a Magisterial Court in the disturbed parts of Ireland in which his presence was not perfectly familiar, and what are his words?—
  "He knew enough of Ireland to say he believed and admitted that the question of the evicted tenants, whether they were rightly er wrongly evicted, whether they were evicted for the purpose of advancing a particular class of politics or not—that so long as it remained unsettled the question of the evicted tenants meant a great deal with reference to the peace of Ireland."
  924
  Now we are told that this Bill is a wanton invention of Her Majesty's Government, without rhyme or reason, founded upon nothing connected with the peace of Ireland. "Meant a great deal with reference to the peace of Ireland" are weighty words coming from one who knows Ireland so well as the hon. and learned Gentleman. If the unsettlement of the question means much for the peace of Ireland, is it not in the interest of Ireland, is it not, above all things, in the interests of the landlords of Ireland, that the question should be settled? I do not dwell further upon the question of the justification for the introduction of such a Bill. I have made a sufficient case by the language I have read. But this I will say—that there are others in addition to the two gentlemen I have quoted who are not in the slightest degree in sympathy with the Government, who have exhibited the bitterest hostility to them, and would like to terminate their existence to-morrow, who have pointed out in language equally weighty that this is not a question of Party, that this is not a question which concerns Her Majesty's Government, but that it is a question which concerns the peace of Ireland and which will concern any Government that has to administer that country. If this question is settled by this Bill it is not necessarily Her Majesty's Government who will reap the fruits. You believe that very shortly you will take their place, and it is you who will then reap the fruit of a measure of this description. I am certain of this—that if such a change takes place your Lordships will then find that it is absolutely necessary, either by this measure or by some other, I am not now dealing with the nature of the measure, but with the question of the necessity for any measure at all—I say your Lordships will find that it is necessary, in some way or other, to deal with the question. Now I come to what is the principle of the Bill. The noble Duke has said that it involves various principles which may practically be summed up in one. I should like to say with regard to that question what was said by the Duke of Argyll when he was defending the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, with regard to which the same language was used and the same attack made upon the principles it was supposed to involve. He said that—

  925
  "Legislation is not one of the exact sciences. I think it most dangerous to say of any measure that, because you adopt a little bit of a certain principle which, if carried further, would be bad and unjust, therefore, when you carried it a small way it was equally bad and unjust."
  I adopt his words, which express my views—
  "It is a temporary measure to meet exceptional circumstances in the interests of peace in Ireland."
  In endeavouring to meet some of the objections which have been urged against the Bill, my arguments will be directed not to matters of detail, but to questions of principle. I say at the outset that I do not for a moment deny the force of many of the arguments and objections that have been urged against the Bill. It has never been denied that the subject is a most thorny and difficult one, and that any measure purporting to deal with it must be open to criticism and objection. If it is an evil that has to be dealt with it is not satisfactory to say that we can point out this or that objection to it. The truth is, that there is scarcely any subject on which you can legislate at all which is not open to objection. There is no Royal road to legislation along which you can march without difficulty. If the measure which the Duke of Devonshire has spoken of to-night were to take shape and form, and to be crystallised into sections of a Bill, I should probably be able to pick in it as many holes as he has tried to pick in this Bill. It has been objected to the Bill that it is a measure under which those who have taken part In an illegal conspiracy might be restored to their holdings. What a lesson, it is said, this would teach! What disturbance it would be likely to lead to! But I observe a considerable difference of opinion with regard to these points. The Duke of Argyll said that, if it were a measure to restore only those who had been misled by the Plan of Campaign, any such measure, apart from compulsory principles, would have his hearty support. It does not seem to me that the question of principle I am discussing depends upon whether the Bill is a voluntary or a compulsory one. If you ought not to countenance the Plan of Campaigners—if you ought not to let them resume possession of their holdings because of the consequences to which it will induce, you ought not to do so by a voluntary scheme any more than by com-
  926
  pulsion. You ought not to take the public money to assist a settlement of that description if it is to be regarded as condoning immorality. Lord Balfour spoke of another class—those who had been evicted owing to circumstances of misfortune, and the noble Marquess spoke last night of some other class; so that, if all these classes be taken together, I find that there would be a considerable consensus of opinion in favour of permitting the return of everybody that this Bill proposes to deal with. I have never hesitated to express in plain and unequivocal terms my opinion of the Plan of Campaign; but it seems to me that, however ready one may be to admit its evils and the wrongs that were done in connection with it, I think a greater injustice would be done, and has been done in representing those who took part in the Plan of Campaign as necessarily immoral and wicked men. I think it fair and just that we should look at the matter from the point of view of the tenants of Ireland. There were two principal circumstances under which the Plan of Campaign was initiated. On some estates it arose from the fact that there had been very bad times as regards agricultural produce. That was recognised in the Act of 1887. In consequence of that, there were undoubtedly tenants who were unable to pay their rents, and there were undoubtedly landlords who were not prepared to make concessions which would have prevented the tenants from losing their holdings. On some estates the tenants who were able to discharge their obligations to the full felt that, if they were not to stand by those tenants who were not in a position to do so, unless the demand for a reduction came from all, they would have no support and would lose their holdings. I am not justifying them; I am not saying they were right; but I say there were many cases where the action of these men was not dictated by ignoble motive or by personal greed, but where they made great and serious sacrifices in order to stand by those of their own class and to save them from misfortune. Again, there were those who resented the interference of landlords from a distance in the efforts between landlord and tenant to settle their disputes upon reasonable terms. They thought that if the landlords were thus banded together to pre-

  927
  vent that settlement it was equally fair for the tenants to combine in their interests. I think that in some cases, so far from these men being ignoble, base, and unworthy of consideration, they acted with a rare unselfishness, and subjected themselves to immense loss, sacrifice, and inconvenience for the sake of their fellows. I think it would be a great wrong to attribute to all those connected with the Plan of Campaign the responsibility of the acts of violence that were committed. We have had strikes recently in this country in connection with which there have been acts of violence committed; but it would be a grievous wrong, a monstrous thing, to charge all those who took part in those strikes with the responsibility of those discreditable acts. I maintain, therefore, that if it be otherwise expedient and desirable to introduce a measure of this description, we ought not to refrain from doing it because same of those who may be within the scope of its terms have been guilty of acts of which we all disapprove. The noble Duke and my noble and learned Friend who has just sat down have put before us cases in which it would be a great hardship to the landlord to have the evicted tenant forced back upon him. But these cases are not typical. It does not follow that everything that comes within the powers of a tribunal, whatever that tribunal might be, would be taken advantage of by men—that all the results will follow which conceivably could follow; and you can never establish any system or arrangement of any kind in which there would not be possible cases of hardship and injustice. There is no system of law and judicature under which there are not hard cases, under which there is not, in the general and popular sense of the expression, some injustice suffered. The noble Duke intimated that under this Bill a tenant who did not fulfil the obligations which the law imposed upon him might be restored to his holding, and thus the landlord deprived of the full rights which the law conferred upon him. He said that one of the objects of the Act of 1881 was to secure to the landlord certain rights, and that to deprive him of any rights that were secured to him by the Act would amount virtually to a repeal of that measure. My Lords, the noble Duke, I observed, made no allusion to the Act of
  928
  1887. If to deprive the landlord of the rights secured to him by the Act of 1881 would be an injustice which this House ought not to tolerate, I may observe that this House has already sanctioned such injustice, for rights conferred under the Act of 1881 were undoubtedly interfered* with by the Act of 1887. I will now ask your Lordships to consider what will be the effect of this Bill upon tenants who have retained their holdings and upon new tenants. It is said that it is a dreadful thing to reward tenants who have not paid their rents and who had been evicted, and to put them into a better position than that of tenants who have stood by their landlords, and who did not join the combination against the payment of rents. But does this Bill really propose to reward the tenant whom it will restore? If he has sinned, surely he has suffered, and that suffering cannot be got rid of by Act of Parliament. He has been in many cases living very differently from the way in which he lived before; he has been out of his holding, and has not had an agreeable or happy time. You do not reward him by putting him back, for his position when he has returned is less favourable than that of the tenant who has remained in his holdings.
  EARL CADOGAN: He gets his rent revised.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): It is true that he gets his rent fixed by the Land Court, but that is a right which every tenant will have by the time that this Bill comes into operation to any considerable extent. I maintain that the old tenant gets no reward, and I do not believe that the tenants who have remained in their holdings will resent the return of the tenant who has been evicted. I believe that the tenants who have remained will be glad to see the land that has been unoccupied re-occupied by the former tenant. Do your Lordships think that every man who does not go out when a strike takes place has necessarily a feeling of hostility towards those who do? No; he may not go out, but his sympathies are often with those who do. Taking into consideration that feeling, and also the feeling for their own class which animates the tenants of Ireland, I believe that you would create no ill-feeling among the tenants who have

  929
  retained possession of their holdings if you were to pass this Bill. Now I turn to the effect of the Bill upon the new tenant. It is said that he will have an indirect but severe compulsion exerted upon him. Well, it seems to me that in the speeches which we have heard there has been the groundless assumption that there is a source of inconvenience and possibly danger in the future to the new tenants in the presence in the neighbourhood of the evicted tenants, looking at the land and longing for it. Happily, peace now reigns in Ireland; but we should be blind to the teaching of the past if we believed that it was certain that peace would always reign there. How often have we seen, when we have thought agrarian troubles ended, some small spark grow into a flame and a recrudescence of crime. What security have we—what security can any man who knows the history of Ireland have—that the condition of things which exists to-day will always continue? It has been said that the new tenant would be placed in a difficulty if he refused to accede to the suggestion that he should make way for the old tenant. But if the old tenants were filled with despair, if they lost all hope of being restored to their holdings, which to them means life and all that life holds dear, do you think that they might not give way to the counsels of despair? Do you think that the state of things in Ireland would be perfectly satisfactory? I trust that the persons concerned might not give way to despair, but I maintain that it would be in the highest degree unwise and unstatesmanlike to regard the condition of things which exists now as one upon which either landlord or new tenant can look with perfect satisfaction. This Bill is a hopeful method of settling the difficulty. Even if the new tenant is unwilling to make way for the old tenant, it does not abandon the latter to the counsels of despair. There is a hope for him even then of beginning a new life, for provision may be made for his migration elsewhere, so that on another holding, removed from the scene of his former life, he may begin again. If such a state of things as that can be brought about, do not you think that it would be far better for the landlord and the new tenant than that things should remain as they are now? I believe that this Bill, far
  930
  from acting unjustly, would act beneficially in the interests both of the land-lord and the new tenant. It has been said that the tribunal proposed in this Bill is a tribunal of an arbitrary and secret character; that it has no rules for its guidance, and that it cannot be called judicial. It has been pointed out that one Arbitrator can act alone, but no reference has been made to the fact that there is a right of appeal by either party to have the three Arbitrators sitting together, if he wishes them to do so, under the fourth section of the 32 & 33 Vict., which is incorporated in this Bill.
  LORD HALSBURY: My noble and learned Friend is in error. The provisions in the Schedule of the Bill will not give the right to which the noble and learned Lord referred. The provision to which he has referred has been repealed by the Statute Law Revision Committee; and in its place there is another and a totally different tribunal.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): I do not think my noble and learned Friend follows the point, because what is referred to is the fourth section of 32 & 33 Vict. It does not matter whether it has been repealed by another Act. That provision to which I have referred is included in this Bill, just as if it were set out in terms.
  LORD HALSBURY: I only intervene again for my noble and learned Friend's own sake. I do not wish to take him by surprise, as I intend to deal with this point in my speech. That portion of the Act has been repealed, and another substituted for it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): In any event, this is a matter of legal argument which will not prove of special interest to the House. I am not satisfied by what the noble Lord has said, that that provision is not to be taken as enacted in this Bill. If that is the result, it is a result not intended, and the matter might perfectly well be set right if the Bill went into Committee. It was not intended, and it is only by an elaborate legal argument it can be shown to exist. I come now to the tribunal. It has been said that it is an unheard-of thing to establish a tribunal without laying down fixed rules for its guidance, and especially a tribunal which has to deal with matters of property. Your Lordships are familiar with a

  931
  tribunal which deals with very serious matters of property, a tribunal consisting in part of layman—I mean the Railway Commissioners—which has to determine without any guidance of principle laid down, questions affecting most seriously the rights of property of Railway Companies. Therefore, I deny that this Bill embodies a new principle. I remind your Lordships that in Ireland unfortunately we have seen Courts constituted such as we never should have endured in England. [Opposition cheers.] Yes, you cheer that; you have the greatest horror of any Court being established in Ireland and different from a Court in England when it deals with a question of property and with questions affecting landlords. But I was alluding to Courts constituted with a couple of men without legal training—half-pay officers and officers of constabulary—who had powers to deal with the liberties of their fellow-subjects in a manner which would not be tolerated in this country. You have no objection to these exceptional Courts when they are Courts of coercion by men untrained in the law and deciding questions of the utmost difficulty involving the liberty of their fellow-men.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: In a disturbed country.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): I venture to say that no Minister will get up, however much this country is disturbed, and dare to propose the enactment of any such provisions as those contained in the Coercion Act. He could not do it if he would; it would not be endured by the people of this country. I am dealing now with the nature of the Court. Of course, you may require exceptional legislation for a disturbed country; but at least you ought to choose Courts of a character fit to decide questions involving the liberty of the subject.
  A noble LORD: May I be allowed to say that the Stipendiary Magistrates acted according to law, and could only act according to law?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): The Resident Magistrates to whom the difficult duties of the Coercion Act were entrusted were men of no legal training—men who were wholly trained in the Army and Constabulary. I maintain that in the nature of the tribunal proposed to be set up by
  932
  this Bill there is nothing of which any reasonable complaint can be made. My noble and learned Friend put a number of questions to me as to whether the tribunal could say whether a certain thing was reasonable or not, what were "the circumstances of the district," and a number of questions about the details of the Bill which might very well be considered if we are going into Committee. But it would be mere trifling to deal with them now when we are considering the great principles involved on the Second Reading. I will not waste my breath on them, because it seems to me that it would be idle to waste one's time or breath upon them when you are going to throw out the Bill. There is not one of those objections, whatever may be said on the matter of compromise, that could not be met by an Amendment in Committee. If it were shown that any words would be better than those chosen, or that mischief or harm would result from those we have selected, we are open to any suggestions and are ready to make any Amendments to make the Bill more workable, satisfactory, and just. But it is idle to discuss that question when we are told that no Amendment will satisfy noble Lords. It is said that this measure could not be accepted because it cannot settle the question. Those arguments are the same as were heard on the Second Reading of the Land Act and on the Compensation for Disturbance Bill. We have heard to-night the echoes of those discussions. It is also said that the Laud Act of 1881 did not settle the question. I do not say that it did; but when the noble Duke points to his prediction as to its failure and the consequences of carrying it, I should like to invite your Lordships to consider what would have been the effect if that Bill had not passed. We have heard of agitation and of disturbance in Ireland—of landlords suffering a reduction in their incomes, and therefore it is said that the Land Act of 1881 has failed. There was a very interesting series of letters published by a County Court Judge in Ireland not in sympathy with my politics at all with reference to the condition of Ireland in relation to the Purchase Act of the late Government. He said that there is no greater or more fatal mistake for Englishmen to make

  933
  than to suppose that the disturbances which they hear of in Ireland, and which characterise certain districts of Ireland, are characteristics of the whole country. He says that through all the disturbed times on four-fifths of the estates in Ireland rents had been paid with as great punctuality as they have been in England; and when we hear of the sacrifices forced on Ireland by the Land Act of 1881, I have not seen it shown yet—and I have seen much evidence to the contrary—that the landlords have suffered one whit more in reduction of rent than the landlords of England have through economic causes. Is it a valid argument to say that because you cannot hope completely to settle this difficulty you ought not to attempt to settle it at all? The argument has been this: that there must be under any scheme some tenants left outside, and that, therefore, the difficulty still remains. But if that is to be a valid argument it applies equally against a voluntary scheme as against a compulsory one. A voluntary settlement is to be brought about by the use of public money, but what right have you to use public money for such a purpose if, according to you, it would not settle the question? But it is not wise or statesmanlike to say that because there may be danger you should not seek to diminish that danger and to restrict the area within narrow limits because you cannot hope to wipe it out altogether. The more you can diminish the centres and areas of danger, the greater your hope and chances of safety. I believe that there exist in Ireland many spots where you have what the noble Duke called "a powder magazine," which any spark may set on fire. You know not when that spark may be applied. You know not when the time of danger will come. You have no security that the time will not come. Is it not wise to make those spots as few as possible, and to restrict the sources of danger within the narrowest possible limits? I come now to what has been stated with regard to the compulsory character of this Bill. The noble Duke stated to-night that it had been alleged that if this Bill were made voluntary it would settle nine-tenths of the cases. Does not that show that if this Bill were carried the area of compulsion would be but small? There is nothing in this Act to prevent voluntary
  934
  arrangement; indeed, there is a provision to encourage it, and if voluntary arangement settled nine-tenths of the cases, there would be very little left for compulsion. I maintain it is in the interests of the landlord and of the new tenant that this question should be settled. If the proposition that this measure will tend to that settlement be sound, then I assert that every landlord who unreasonably refuses a settlement is injuring the whole of his class as well as tending to disturb the peace of Ireland. It is in the public interest that the hundreds and thousands of acres which are derelict should be occupied. It is not unjustifiable to say, "You are the owner of the land, but a condition of things has arisen under which the land has been left derelict. The vast majority of your class have made arrangements to bring the land again into cultivation. Do you refuse to do so?" I say that no wrong is done to that man or to his class, but that it is for the welfare of his class as well as to the advantage of the country that such arrangements should be made, compulsorily if necessary. Everyone would rather have a voluntary than a compulsory Bill if it had been introduced. Can it be supposed that it is for any pleasure or satisfaction in itself that the compulsory principle has been introduced? If it has been introduced, it has been because there has been a great object in view, which could not be obtained without the compulsory principle. Are there no estates which will recur to the minds of your Lordships where landlords have acted unreasonably? We in this House hear the landlords' view largely. We have had a procession of Irish landlords, if I might use the term. One would have liked to have heard a few of the tenants' views on particular estates. Any landlord who acts unreasonably injures his class, injures the public, renders the government of Ireland burdensome, and increases the taxes that have to be levied for the administration of law and order in Ireland. Where such a state of things exists—as exist it does; known to all of us—to say that nothing could justify the introduction of a measure which would impose on any man any compulsion; to say that he may leave his land derelict, however unreasonably, however great the disadvantage to the

  935
  public, however great the wrong done to others—I say that that is an unreasonable view. It is pressing rights to an unreasonable length; and I believe that there is nothing worse in the interests of property than that the rights of property should be pressed to au extreme and unreasonable length. The noble Duke has said that we have shown no disposition to agree to a compromise on this matter. What is the condition which he makes? He says, "We cannot re-frame this Bill. We cannot put it into any different shape. You yourselves bring down and put upon the Table the Amendments which you would propose or would consent to, and then we will tell you whether we are willing to assent to them." I will venture to say in the whole history of Parliamentary legislation no such suggestion was ever made before? The proposals for an Amendment or compromise must come from those who are not satisfied with the Bill in its original shape, and who desire Amendments to be made And for whom does the noble Marquess (Lord Lansdowne) speak when he makes the suggestion? We have heard of the editorial "we," which means the person who writes the article; but I am not sure how far beyond the noble Marquess himself his "we" extends. The noble Duke spoke in similar terms; but though I have listened to the subsequent Debate, till this time I have not heard that "we" reechoed from the Opposition side of the House. It would be little satisfaction to us to satisfy the noble Marquess and the noble Duke only, because that would not carry the Bill, unless we satisfied also another noble Marquess who is all-powerful in this House. I will tell you why we despair of any compromise or settlement. I have read the discussion in the other House when this Bill was introduced, and I have noticed its tone and temper. I recall how an Amendment was put down which would have pledged the House to adopt a fair and reasonable settlement. I know from the author of that proposal that he was made to take that Amendment off the Paper because he was told that it would not receive the support of the Conservative Party, whom the landlords of Ireland had forced to meet the Bill, not with an Amendment of that kind, but with a completely hostile Amendment, and with no sug-
  936
  gestion of a fair and equitable settlement. After hearing the speech of the hon. Member who proposed that settlement, what hope or use would there be in holding out any suggestions on our part, however willing we may be to listen and welcome any reasonable suggestions? The attitude taken by that hon. Member is not insignificant in relation to some of the matters of which I have spoken. Why is he so keen for this settlement? Why is he so anxious that Parliament should at least seem willing to settle it? He does not love us or our politics, and he does not wish to make things easy and pleasant for us in Ireland. He knows the tenantry of Ireland, if he knows anything; and he knows the tenantry in the North of Ireland, who do not agree with us. I venture to say that I am not making a wrong deduction from his action when I say that he knows that those tenants, though Unionist in politics, are not without their keen sympathies for the evicted tenants in other parts of Ireland. In that little fact there is enough to indicate the sources of danger to those who are wise enough to read the signs of the times. I am quite aware that nothing can be said which is likely to induce your Lordships to change your attitude towards this Bill. I regret it. I believe, with all my heart, that it is a mistaken course. I believe that one day it will be seen to be a mistaken course. If it were possible, even at this late hour, to observe any change of the attitude of extreme hostility to this Bill, I should welcome it. For this I say, adopting the words which were used by the noble Earl who then led the Opposition in closing the Debate on the Compensation for Disturbance Bill—words which, I believe, may be applied with vastly more truth to this case than to that—
  "If, after all, you were to accept this Bill, you would do an act for which your country would be grateful and for which posterity would commend you."
  LORD HALSBURY: My Lords, although my noble and learned Friend has occupied his fair share of this Debate, I am compelled to say that the one thing he has not done is to explain or defend this Bill. We have had what I confess to my mind looks like an attack, and an intimation to all your Lordships who take

  937
  a different view to my noble and learned Friend. It does not appear to be respectful. He commenced and closed with the remark that, however conclusively he established his proposition, however clear the necessity for this Bill might be, he was perfectly aware that it would not have the slightest effect upon the majority of you.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): That was in reference to what my noble Friend had said.
  LORD HALSBURY: I am extremely glad to hear that explanation, because I heard with some pain the observation repeated only within the last few words of the argument, and, therefore, I am glad to accept his explanation. We had to appeal to the authority of the other House. I am not aware that the authority of the other House was in question at all. Of course, I can understand, if the rejection of this Bill is to be made the subject of attack at meetings in the country and elsewhere, such an expression as that of my noble and learned Friend is of great use. I regret that that topic should be introduced here. My noble and learned Friend's advocacy was extremely skilful; he has managed to direct the discussion to a subject that is not what we are engaged upon. The subject we are engaged upon here is the Second Reading of this Bill, and I confess I should like to know, and I hope to hear from the Prime Minister, if we are to read the Bill a second time, what is the principle they affirm. Because I suppose it is a part of the Parliamentary procedure that we affirm the principles of this Bill by the Second Reading. I will discuss in a moment of what it consists, but before I pass away from my noble and learned Friend's initial observation, I must refer for a moment to another observation of his about the passage of this Bill in the other House. One noble Lord had had the temerity to say that the gag was never applied to this Bill. That is astonishing when we remember the Resolution of the 1st of August; but I suppose he meant it did not become necessary, because with a due sense of their own dignity those who were discussing the Bill declined to have a sham discussion, and withdrew from the discussion. One further observation was made by my noble and learned Friend
  938
  on a very dangerous topic. He said this Bill had been based and had come to us by the voice and the will of the Representatives of the people. He told us he never approved of the Plan of Campaign as a thing which could be upheld. Did it ever occur to him to ask himself how many of the Representatives of the people combined in that conspiracy? When one considers the history of this measure and the mode by which this Bill has been introduced, and the way in which the Government had used a majority far exceeding their proper number to force this Bill through the Commons, the matter which I should think would be most important to consider would be the provisions of the Bill itself. It is idle of my noble and learned Friend to dismiss the tribunal as of little importance. Why, the very essence of the Bill is the tribunal, or so-called tribunal, which is constituted under it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): I beg to say I did not say anything of the kind.
  LORD HALSBURY: I will accept any explanation that my noble and learned Friend likes to offer. From the beginning to the end of his speech he has not once replied to the observation that the tribunal he has constituted is a tribunal that can do anything it pleases. The constitution of this tribunal constitutes the whole point of this Bill. I can quite understand Parliament in its supreme authority laying down certain laws, perhaps different from ours. I can imagine Parliament in its authority laying down a code for Ireland, but it should be for the people then to know what are their rights. But this creates three Dictators, who are to make their own laws, and who are to have no guidance by Statute what to do, but to determine each by the circumstances of the district. What is the moaning of "the circumstances of the district"? What were the circumstances of the district which made it desirable that a certain tenant should be restored. It is perfectly novel in the whole history of British legislation and my noble Friend has been challenged for a precedent for such a system and he has failed, and where he has failed none are likely to succeed. In the Mathew Commission evidence was given that in a great number of cases the evicted tenants were restored, but in two or three of them it

  939
  was said that difficulties had arisen with the landlord, and on further inquiry it was found that the landlord, in more than one case, had restored the great body of the tenants, but would refuse to restore those who had been the leaders of the agitation against the authority of the law. Is such a thing to justify the restoration of the leaders of the Plan of Campaign in a particular district? It is not for us to conjecture; we have a right to know from the Government what is the meaning of those words. Over and over again the Lord Chancellor had declined to give any explanation. We are not told what the Government mean by "circumstances of the district or some other cause appearing to them sufficient." What does that mean? It means anything in the world. The legal principle that you can refer them to some common jury does not apply here. I can imagine no common jury to which they could be brought so that they could limit the authority of this tribunal. When you deal with the landlord's rights you have another question. I am not concerned at present to discuss his rights more than any others, but because the man owns the land instead of the money with which the land can be bought, you surely are not going to say that he is to be treated on a different principle. My noble and learned Friend would not for a moment induce such experimental legislation. Would you dare to make such a tribunal as this determine the position of capital and labour? If you would your tenure of Office would expire to-morrow. Why is the landlord to be treated differently? Why not treat all in the same way? I noticed one very significant fact that was brought out in the House of Commons the other night. One Member was asked, "Give me a single instance where a landlord has been harsh," and for his sins he was tempted to give the name of the tenant. The matter was very soon explained, and he was compelled to admit that that was a totally different case. The challenge was not responded to. What does this question amount to? An attempt to take away a man's property without compensation. You say you do not take the property from the landlords, but only prevent them exercising their will. It seems to me that you take my life if you take the property which would sustain my life; but the tribunal which
  940
  is to deal with the question is, as I say, left without guidance entirely. The question in dispute here is that the landlord has got the land and the tenant wants to get it. That is not a dispute; One man wants the property of another. It is sometimes distinguished in our Courts by another and a harsher name. Go to the country and say, "Here is an existing sore; here is a thing which makes the government of Ireland difficult, and we propose a remedy." Well, the Lords throw it out. That is their fault. Why do you not demand the Bill if you believe that 80 per cent, of the cases will be settled voluntarily? If that could be done, why did not the Government do it in this Bill? Is it the fact that they would not be permitted to do so in the other House? It has been so suggested. I cannot tell. They know their own secrets better than I do. If you really think that 80 per cent, of the cases would be settled by voluntary arrangements it is obvious that the objection of this Bill would be a very small one—only 20 per cent. It was a gross fallacy. Many a landlord who was in a position of influence in his county would assist and aid any voluntary principle by which he and his tenants might be made friends for the future, but when he is confronted with a measure which at every turn annihilated his rights he would hardly be disposed to do so. My noble and learned Friend says it actually increases the facility for voluntary settlement. If it does, it is the oddest voluntary settlement I have ever heard of in my life. That being the condition of the Bill, my noble and learned Friend, I think with great skill and his accustomed caution, does not say one word about it. I have not heard a single word except such as lead me to believe that the authors of the Bill did not exactly know what they were dealing with. My noble and learned Friend said, I suppose after the conviction was forced upon him, that I was right and he was wrong, that it was a matter of no importance. If this Bill passed into law, I take it my noble and learned Friend would deal with it as it is, and the effect will be this: that Her Majesty's Government will not know to what tribunal these things are to be referred. It almost seems as if the Government had made up its mind that such a Bill could

  941
  not pass. It is all very well for my noble and learned Friend to say that posterity will discharge the debts which are incurred in its behalf. I heard all that 20 years ago in the House of Commons, but we are now doing the same thing all over again. Was it for this object that this Bill was brought forward? I read an instructing paragraph in The Freeman's Journal, which I will trouble the House with. It says:—
  "Mr. Dillon, if need be, will show how little tired he is of the fight to plant a flag in Ireland."
  That is one of their leaders. It is in The Freeman's Journal, and I suppose the authority of that will be recognised. The sacred right of a man to be tried for his life by his fellows was abolished in Ireland by a Government of which my noble and learned Friend was a Member, and I think—I forget the exact number—that something like 1,000 people were imprisoned in Kilmainham. It may be it was necessary, and I am not commenting upon it as anything that ought to be complained of against the Government of the day, but we never did anything to abolish the rights of people in Ireland as the Government, of which my noble and learned Friend is a Member, has done. This is a Bill which, it cannot be denied, has set at defiance all the rights of the people, and the only thing we hear is the old cuckoo cry—"Here is a great social evil in Ireland, and we must do something for it." I did expect from my noble and learned Friend when he got up to hear something in defence of this measure, but here, on the last night of the Debate, from the beginning to the end not one word has he said in defence of it. Is that a respectable attitude? He also used the old formula, "If you throw it out it will not add to the stability of your Lordships' House." I think it ought to be understood in future, and that formula ought to be adopted. The broad fact remains stamped on the measure that the Irish people who disobeyed the law are to be put in the places of the planter tenants who stepped in to restore the land, and the planter tenants are to be removed. I believe if this Bill had been one which affected the evicted tenants alone it would have been bad enough, but this will open up contracts or arrangements which have existed between parties for 15 years. Did you ever hear of such
  942
  a system of legislation? It seems to me it only wanted that to show how to render it impossible. It is a Bill calculated to injure the Irish people, and this is described as a message of peace.
  LORD HOWTHsaid, he remembered as far back as 1870 having the privilege of sitting in the other House, and he felt it his duty then to say a few words on the Land Bill then passing through, and he remembered remarking that that Bill did not go far enough in favour of the tenant on the score of expediency and on the score of avoiding future trouble and of lessening future crime and ill-feeling. He was in accord with the principles of the present Bill; but when he considered its authorship and the circumstances under which it had been brought forward, he felt it incumbent upon him to vote against it. The Government, like men in monetary difficulties, had waited till the last moment to pay their debt. They had declined to deal with the measure till the last moment, and had then refused to allow it to be discussed. He did not think that even Mr. Gladstone in his great anxiety for the welfare and prosperity of the Irish tenants ever advocated or thought of bringing forward a measure of this character. Under the Home Rule Bill it was provided that a certain number of years should elapse before any legislation should be undertaken with regard to the land, and these tenants would have been kept out in the cold. With regard to this Bill, he regretted to see that it was so very one sided. He did not know whether Her Majesty's Ministers framed the Bill; he hardly thought that they could have done, for it bore so strong an imitation of another Bill framed in opposition to the landlords' interests. He held that they as landlords had a right to rebel against such a measure. The vital question raised in connection with it was to be found in the compulsory clauses, and without going over the already well-trodden ground he would simply observe that he could not possibly support such a proposal. Unless some compromise could be made, and the voluntary principle inserted, the Bill could not be allowed to pass. He could not understand the unwillingness of the Government to make this change, for he was certain that if they went round to the evicted tenants themselves and got an expression of

  943
  their opinions, irrespective of their leaders and the priests, they would find them willing to accept a voluntary Bill. The Lord Chancellor had told them that the voluntary principle could not be accepted because under it it would not be possible to allow the expenditure of public money; but he believed that if the Government were willing they could overcome that difficulty. One point had been altogether lost sight of in the course of the Debates on the Bill, and it was the resisting power of the landlords. It appeared to him they would be able to develop a great resisting power, and it was almost impossible to describe what might occur in the way of trouble and annoyance if an evicted tenant were forced upon them. He thought it would be well if some of the more sincere friends of the Irish tenants would make it clear to them that unless the compulsory system was modified very greatly, and indeed got rid of altogether, there was no prospect whatever of these unfortunate people being restored to their homes. As to the landlords, who were on their defence that day, he ventured to assert that they were in no way to blame for the present condition of affairs. He had only one other point to touch upon, and that was a danger ahead of them should the Bill ever become law. He believed one of the objects of the promoters of the measure was to make the valuation to be placed upon derelict farms and broken-down fences and cabins a precedent for future valuations. One of these valuations would probably have to be made next year, and it would be very hard if the valuations made under the Bill were to constitute a basis for valuations all over the country. He did not wish to censure Her Majesty's Government for this; probably they had not foreseen this possible result, which, however, was certainly contemplated by the tenants' advisers and by the clergy. Although he spoke with every respect for Mr. Fottrell, one of the persons most skilled in settling differences between Irish landlords and tenants, he ought to be aware of this great danger—a danger all the more emphasised by the very reason of his admitted eminence in making valuations. He thought that valuations made under the Bill should be treated as exceptional, and in no way affect the general principle
  944
  of valuation now obtaining in Ireland. If the Bill were modified and made voluntary, it might be accepted as a measure of mercy and charity, but as at present framed it certainly did not offer the best way of giving relief to the unfortunate evicted tenants.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOB WAR (Lord SANDHURST)said, that although he was not an Irish landlord, and had not the honour of following the profession of the law, he wished to say a few words on this Bill. He had hoped that the noble Lord who had just spoken would have given the Government his vote, for he had expressed himself in favour of a Voluntary Bill, and if this measure were allowed to pass a Second Reading their Lordships in Committee could amend it in any way they desired. He had also hoped that the Government might claim and receive the vote of the Duke of Argyll to the Second Reading of this Bill, because every word of the speech of the noble Duke on the Compensation for Disturbance Bill 13 or 14 years ago applied to the Bill now before their Lordships. He well remembered the Debate on that Bill, and he was on that occasion immensely struck with the speech of the noble Duke, for it made him realise for the first time—lie was then young in politics—the grave importance of the Irish Land Question. The policy of the Government in relation to Ireland was frequently subjected to attack from many quarters, but he ventured to claim on its behalf that, at any rate, it had so far been successful, for never had there been a time when Ireland was more tranquil under the ordinary law than it was now. He had been told by many people high in authority in the country as statesmen that the question really before the Irish people was not the Home Rule but the Land question, and that being so he ventured to think this Bill would go far in giving satisfaction to the Irish tenants. Lord Lonsdale had reminded their Lordships that this was a political question. But then almost every question that came before them for discussion was political. Personally, he would be inclined to describe this as a social Bill rather than as a political one—its principal purpose being well described by the words, "to live and let live." He wished to refer for a few minutes to what

  945
  was known as Mr. Russell's clause. The noble Lord who was lately Lord Chancellor of England had asserted that the Government when the Bill came to the House knew that it would not pass, and indeed did not expect it to. He ventured to assure the noble Lord that until the Second Reading in the other House the Government were extremely sanguine that it would become law. In very many quarters a desire had been expressed that a settlement should be come to, and it was only in the course of the Second Reading Debate that the attitude of non possumus was taken up. As to Mr. Russell's clause, which had now become famous, how was it drafted in the first instance? When it was laid before the House of Commons in 1891, Mr. Russell proposed that it should be ante-dated five years, which would just bring in the Plan of Campaign tenants, and he explained it would bring to an end about three-fourths of the disputes, and would apply to the Coolgreany, Ponsonby, and Olphert estates. Mr. Balfour at that time also expressed an opinion that anything which could be done to settle these disputes ought to be supported. But later, on the suggestion of Mr. Sexton, a proposal was made to ante-date the clause from the 1st of May, 1879, and it was the date adopted in the Bill. Unhappily, as Mr. Russell had said, the clause was not successful, and the Government were now laying before their Lordships something which it was hoped would meet the difficulties of the case. As would be remembered, Mr. Russell's clause dealt only with the tenantless lands, and Mr. Russell in his speech on it said—
  "So far as the tenanted holdings are concerned, there are great difficulties in bringing them under the operation of the clause."
  But what were his reasons for that? The lateness of the Session and the possibility that the clause might not be carried in another place if such holdings were included. But it evidently occurred to this gentleman, who was an influential Member of the Unionist Party, that it would be right to use the public credit for the purpose of reinstating these tenants. As he had said, the clause failed, and it had been alleged in some quarters that it failed by reason of the provision for a six months' notice; and further it
  946
  was suggested that the failure was brought about by certain combinations that, however, did not appear to be known to the Mathew Commission, because that body expressly reported that they did not think there had been any wish or any combination to frustrate the proper working of the clause. He did not wish to pose before their Lordships as being in any way more sympathetic in regard to the horrors of evictions than any other noble Lord then present; but at the same time he could not help saying as a private Englishman who obtained his information from the daily Press that the story of those evictions to a certain extent lowered the pride he felt in being an Englishman. This was not the language of cant; it was a most sincere feeling on his part. As had been stated by many conversant with the question it was only those who lived among the Irish peasantry who could accurately gauge the peasant's affection for the land on which he had been brought up. He would call to his assistance on this point a passage from a speech delivered by the Duke of Argyll, who said—
  "The tenants of Ireland have such a love for their homes that they would submit to anything rather than be detached from the soil on which they live,"
  The Bill before their Lordships was directed to the gratification of the passionate devotion which the noble Duke had described in such eloquent language. Their Lordships would, of course, remember the Bessborough Commission, which reported that—
  "The Land Act of 1870 failed to give adequate security, particularly against an increase of rents. Large estates are considerately managed, but on some estates, am I some recently acquired, rents have been raised not only beyond the value of the land, but even so as to absorb the tenants' improvements."
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: Is the noble Lord quoting from my speech?
  LORD SANDHURST: No; from the Report of the Bessborough Commission. The passage I quoted from the noble Duke's speech simply had reference to the love of the Irish for their homes.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: What was the date of my speech?
  LORD SANDHURST: August 3, 1889, and the occasion was the Compensation for Disturbance Bill. Their Lordships would remember that 1877 was a

  947
  bad year, 1878 was worse, and 1879 was declared by the Cowper Commission to be the worst year of the century—1846 alone excepted. Evictions, the average of which had been 500 for five years previous to 1877, increased in number until in the first six months of 1880 they numbered over 1,000. The figures were: For the five years ending 1877, 503; 1878, 743; 1879, 1,908; and to June 20, 1880, 1,073. Now he thought a case had been made out for the adoption of some extraordinary measures on behalf of the evicted tenants against whom everything appeared to have combined. He was almost ashamed to mention these matters before Irish landlords who were perhaps better acquainted than himself with the real state of affairs. [Viscount POWERSCOURT: Hear, hear!] He presumed the noble Lord did not contradict the statement he had made.
  VISCOUNT POWERSCOUKT: No; I meant that we were better acquainted with the affairs of Ireland than you are.
  LORD SANDHURSTsaid, he was dealing with facts. In the years he had named the potato crop and the turf failed, the tenants lost a great deal of credit with their tradesmen, and at the same time the earnings of those peasants who were in the habit of crossing to England to assist in the ingathering of the harvest there had been materially decreased because of alterations in the system of agriculture. Their Lordships quickly passed a Coercion Bill, sent up from the other House, through which it had been forced by means of the Closure, and the Government now claimed that the present Bill was quite as important in the interests of peace and order as any Coercion Bill, and ought therefore to be allowed to go through. The Duke of Argyll, when speaking on the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, remarked that it was introduced at a time when Ireland had been the victim of the most unprincipled agitation which had ever vexed the melancholy ocean of Irish politics. But the situation to-day had vastly changed. Ireland was perfectly tranquil, and if ever there was an occasion when the hand of conciliation should be held out in the interests of peace it was the present. He did, therefore, suggest to their Lordships—although he feared it was fruitless to do so—that it would be a pity to lose this
  948
  golden opportunity of settling a difficult question.
  THE EARL OF KILMOREYsaid, that, as an owner of Irish estates, and as one intimately connected with and interested in Irish politics, he asked leave to utter a few words in support of the Motion of the noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill. He listened on the previous night with great interest and not a little surprise to the speech delivered by the noble Lord on the Government Bench, who speaking, he presumed, for his friends as well as himself, attempted to blame the Conservatives and Liberal Unionists because no compromise had been arrived at. The point in dispute between the Opposition and the Government was one not of detail, but of principle. What had happened during the last few weeks? It was reported—and the report had not been contradicted—that many attempts had been made to create a modus vivendi, and if they had failed, the fault rested with the Government and not with the Opposition. He could not admit that the speeches of the Opposition breathed hostility root and branch to the principle as well as the details of the Bill. What the Opposition were opposed to was the proposed glorification of well-known evil-doers, to the reinstatement of men who could pay, but would not pay their rents, and to the insistence on a compulsory instead of a voluntary power. Those who alleged that the Unionist Party were actuated by motives such as had been suggested were grievously mistaken, for they were as anxious as the Government to bring these troubles to a happy conclusion. They were just as full of the milk of human kindness as the Government, but the Unionist Party were just before being generous, and they very properly insisted that the scheme should be made a voluntary and not a compulsory one. An important fact to keep before the country was that all attempts at compromise had been refused by the Government and by the Leaders of the Nationalist Party in another place. Rather than be baulked of the theatrical display which they had in view—marching their ragged ruffians home with flags flying, and brass bands playing Nationalist or rebel airs, they were determined to accept no compromise whatever, and therefore it was the fault of the leaders of the tenants that these

  949
  unfortunate outcasts would again be left on the bill-side. Of course their Lordships would be blamed for that; it would be said all along the country side that it was their fault that these men were left to starve; but, as they knew, it was not true, and those whose opinions they most valued would never for a moment listen to such a base unfounded accusation. The noble Earl who introduced the Bill on the previous night said that a voluntary arrangement might do a great deal towards settling this question, but at the same time said they must be assured that both parties to the contract would loyally carry it out. On that point he agreed with his noble Friend, but be ventured to add that if either party showed disloyalty to any such contract it would not be the landlord party. A noble Lord opposite (Lord Tweedmouth) read their Lordships a severe lecture, which culminated in something approaching threatening language, such as they were accustomed to hear from the noble Lord's Nationalist and Radical friends. He spoke of this as a landlords' House, or a House of landlords, and added that they did not constitute a fit and proper tribunal to adjudicate upon this question. But if they were not able to adjudicate, who on earth was? Was being the owner of a racehorse a bar to being a member of the Jockey Club? Was the ownership of a yacht a bar to serving on the committee of the Royal Yacht Squadron? How was the Council of the Royal Agricultural Society constituted? Was it not made up of men intimately connected with farming pursuits, both practically and theoretically? Were there not in that House a certain number of men who for many years past had paid the closest attention to all matters connected with Irish land and politics, and if they were not qualified now to give au opinion, who on earth, he again asked, was? He left it to others to inform the noble Lord what was the sense of the House in regard to his speech. The sneer he levelled at them was not worthy of him, for he knew there were scores and hundreds of men in the House who, quite as much as Members of the House of Commons, had been in the habit of associating with different classes and different men, and had obtained thereby a personal knowledge of their wants. What were they asked to do by
  950
  the Government? In the first place, they were asked to pass a measure such as had never before been seen, a measure which put a premium on the successful evasion of acknowledged liabilities. This measure levelled an undeserved insult at those men who had preferred loyalty and honesty to rebellion and fraud. At the same time, their Lordships were invited to set aside and overrule judicial decisions by giving unlimited power into the hands of an amateur triumvirate, who would confiscate property without confiscation, and distribute an enormous amount of money to undeserving persons, entirely forgetful of the claims of those who were much more entitled to it. What would the noble Lord or his friends opposite say if his or their tenantry were to rise suddenly, and because of some disagreement on a political point call upon them to surrender their ownerships, and with cynical insolence state that they would pay their rents into the war chest until their claims had been conceded? The Lord Chamberlain was well qualified to give an opinion on matters connected with landed estate management; he was well-known, too, for his great generosity and his great ability in the direction of affairs; he bore a high character both for justice and common-sense. What would he say if a Plan of Campaign were brought home to him with such practical ferocity? Surely he and his friends would do exactly as the Irish landlords did. They looked on the situation at first with astonishment; then they sought to temporise and to induce the men to listen to reason, and when the limits of patience and forbearance were reached, they declared that they would have no more nonsense, and the tenants must either pay or go. That was exactly what had happened on estates in Ireland. He would ask the noble Lord one more question as to what he would do under similar circumstances? Would he, at the expiration of two years, reinstate those who had deserted him, and turn out the honest men who at his invitation had taken the farm, much to his emolument? Surely he would not be human if he submitted his cheek to be smitten in such a way. Only an angel dressed in Peer's robes could do that. And yet the House was asked to grant £250,000 in order to subsidise the men who deliberately broke the law and gloried in

  951
  doing it at the time. Surely there were Irishmen much more deserving of this money. If any class deserved sympathy they were the brave fellows who had paid rent in troublous times, not those who had slunk away like curs and had repudiated their liabilities. The men deliberately broke the law, and he was in a position to say that the honest class of tenants in Ireland were not in sympathy with those who were called the evicted tenants. It was their duty to make that fact known to the country. It was false to say that the agricultural population of Ireland had any great feeling of sympathy for these tenants, and it was equally false to assert that if their Lordships rejected this Bill there would be a recurrence of crime and disorder in that country. But even if it did break out, he presumed that they might look to Ministers to repress anything of the kind and to preserve order. This was not the first time that their Lordships had been told to accept a bare majority in another place as an infallible indication of public opinion. This Bill, which reflected so little credit on the Government proposing it, was no doubt passed in the House of Commons by a majority of 32; but if they eliminated from that majority the votes of the Nationalist Members, on which side then was the expression of public opinion? It was, moreover, admitted that on this, as on a former occasion, a certain number of the Members of the Liberal and Radical Party supported the Government contrary to their private feeling and convictions, but confident that their Lordships would throw it out. That had been stated, and it had never, so far as he knew, been contradicted. They were like Mr. Bernal Osborne, who once, after almost annihilating a Bill before the House of Commons, turned round to his revered chief, and promised his vote in support of the measure because he said he did not mind "helping a lame dog over a stile." This Bill had been brought forward on the score of urgency—urgency, he presumed, for the preservation of peace; but he would tell their Lordships that, as far as the agricultural population of Ireland was concerned, there was no urgency at all. The urgency was felt in another place by Her Majesty's Ministers, who held Office by the sufferance of men who for years had made it their
  952
  boast that they had made the government of Ireland impossible. These were the men who did their best to destroy the innumurable benefits of the Union, which, it was their hope, would be perpetuated instead of being broken. The Prime Minister, on his assumption of Office, elected to submit the Home Rule Bill, the legacy of his eminent predecessor, to the country's decision. He hoped the same course would be taken with regard to this Bill, for there was no doubt what the decision of the country would be. In rejecting the Bill without hesitation their Lordships would not only be doing what they thought to be right, but they would be expressing the sentiments of the country at large by refusing to place on the Statute Book of the realm an Act which they considered to be bad from beginning to end.
  VISCOUNT POWERSCOURTsaid, he was sure no man in the House could be more willing than he as an Irish landlord to reinstate the evicted tenants if it could be done on fair terms. But the terms offered by the Bill were not fair, because although no doubt the tenants' rights were strong, the policy of the Bill seemed such that the landlords' rights were ignored altogether. He for one could not see how, under a compulsory Bill, justice could be done. He was sorry if the door to compromise was closed, but the want of desire for compromise belonged to Her Majesty's Government. What had been going on quite lately? The Committee to inquire into the working of the Irish Land Acts had been sitting, and while the evidence of the tenants had in every case been heard that of the landlords had been refused. The noble Earl who moved the Second Reading had spoken of the Irish landlords in terms which he could not allow to pass without challenge. The noble Lord said that they had never spent money on their estates. He knew one noble Lord in the House who had spent nearly £40,000 in building houses and improving farms within the last 20 years, and he himself, although he had no desire to speak about himself personally, had spent quite as much on his own property. Every landlord of common sense would seek to improve his own estate by raising the status of his tenants. He was informed by those who knew, by solicitors and land agents in

  953
  Dublin, that if this Bill passed the only remedy which the landlord would have for the non-payment of rent would be distraint. The process meant selling the stock at a ruinous price, and ruining the tenant as well as the landlord. The landlord would, further, be subject to all sorts of actions for illegal distraint. Surely the only corollary of this Bill would be one to prevent eviction altogether. In England, in towns as well as in country, evictions for the recovery of rent were of daily occurrence. Why should the Irish landlord alone be pro hibited from recovering rent by eviction? The noble Earl in saying that the Irish landlords had spent no money on their estates——
  EARL SPENCER: I never said that at all.
  VISCOUNT POWERSCOURT: You said something very like it.
  EARL SPENCER: I deny that I said anything of the sort. Once or twice something I said has been referred to as an attack on Irish landlords. If I did attack them—as I am sure I did not—it was not my intention in any way to be unjust to them. I have always said that a very large body of Irish landlords have been perfectly fair and equitable in their treatment of their tenants; but that there was a residue who unfortunately have not acted in that way.
  VISCOUNT POWERSCOURTsaid, the Irish landlords had borrowed enormous sums from the Board of Works entirely for the benefit of their tenants, and he only wished to add that they had acted in quite as generous and liberal a way as the landlords of England and Scotland.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, that he had endeavoured to ascertain what were the claims of the evicted tenants to the enormous advantages which were accorded to them and which no other class in the world possessed, and he had found great difficulty in discovering them. He turned to the statistics which he had of one of the Campaign estates—an estate of which he knew something—and he found directly abundant evidence that the claims were distinctly in most cases very, very doubtful. These statistics, which happened to be of his own estate, were not furnished to him as a weapon against this Bill. They were dated 1891 and
  954
  1892. They were sent to him to enable him as the landowner to see how many of the evicted Campaigners it would be possible safely to put back. He found some rather peculiar and notable results. Of these evicted Campaigners 59 not only wished and asked to be evicted, but insisted on being evicted. They would go. They, many of them, confessed that they were able to pay, and many admitted that they wished to be turned out so that they might live on the Plan of Campaign. Fifty-four asked to be put back, and were put back, and that was evidence—though he did not say absolute proof—that the owner was not a non-possumist, if he might use the term. Among the lists—there were two estates kept separately—he found an accidental sequence of eight tenants who all insisted on going. They owed from 6½ to 10 years' rent, which was more than 20 per cent, below the Government valuation, the valuation being £39 15s. and the rent £30 15s. The lists showed, Mr. Sexton notwithstanding, that the 92 Campaigners owed 471 years' rent, fully five years per head. Further, Mr. William O'Brien notwithstanding, three-fourths of the whole lot were not evicted until the latter half of 1889, long after the date that he said they had all been evicted, much more than two years after the baptism of the Plan of Campaign. A further supplement showed that 41 new tenants, or planters, all consented to pay slightly more than the full total which the ex-tenants would not pay. Among these was one case cited by Mr. Dillon, who contended that the so-called planters were in fact bogus tenants, and that one of them who had taken five farms of his (Lord Clanricarde's) had been unable to settle with the landlord, and consequently had disposed of the tenancy to an ex-Campaigner. Mr. Dillon added that he (Lord Clanricarde) was quite capable of keeping on the planters in order to force the combination maliciously. Mr. Dillon, this obliging personality, was not worth notice, but he (Lord Clanricarde) followed the facts to confute his distortion of them. That planter had been shown not to have been a bogus tenant and not to have been in difficulties by the simple fact that he did settle with his landlord until he (the planter) died, and then his legatee paid the balance. It was not the planter, but the evicted Campaigner who

  955
  began the barter for the tenancy by the offer of £100, and who ultimately offered £300, which showed that the holding was so low let as to be worth a good sum of money. Ultimately the matter collapsed over some details, so that he need not discuss whether he would or would not give the tenancy to the ex-Campaigner. But he would point out how under this Bill this Dillon hypothesis would work. The Campaigner owed the landlord £75 on eviction. That he was willing now to pay; he admitted that it was justly due, and in his own words it was a "debt of conscience." By this Bill, on Mr. Dillon's hypothesis, the owner would be compelled to put back the Campaigner, who would have to pay not the owner the £75, but £125 to somebody else, an outsider to whom nothing was due, and who was not the owner. That was absurd—almost as good as a play. Lastly, the statistics showed that the whole rent of the farms still on hand on his Campaign estates was 15 per cent, below the Government valuation. That was evidence—he would not say proof—that the farms were low-let, and there was no excessive demand on the part of the owner of the land. One other cognate point—as to the antecedents of these Campaigners. Were they such as to preclude the assumption that they would not make unsuitable tenants? He would refer to the cases of two of these evicted tenants. P. McDermott was one of them. He had heard him quoted as "the infernal machine man," because when evicted, owing 4½ years' rent, an infernal machine of the worst kind was found attached to his door which only missed blowing everyone to bits by the mere chance of the lock being picked and not forced. That man's rent was 27 per cent, below the Government valuation. The rent was £47, and the valuation £65 for the land alone. He was evicted for £89 after four years' hard campaigning, and refusing any payment on account on an abatement of 20 and 25 per cent. Before the Court of Investigation he would give no information, and before the Mathew Commission he illustrated that systematic concealment of important facts which marked that unlimited Liability Company. He was asked—Question 6827, he thought—why he had been summoned before the Court, and his answer was
  956
  that it was in consequence of some infernal machine alleged to have been found on the farm of an evicted tenant. No one would guess from that that he himself was the evicted tenant. That was an important point. Obviously the law-abiding landowner preferred that this man should take himself and his infernal machine, in constitutional language, to "another place." His only other case was an eviction on another farm on which occurred one of the worst attempts at murder known in the country by a gang of men. A manager was wounded and the horse of the police guard was killed by a bullet from a volley fired in broad daylight on the Queen's highway. One of the gang was afterwards sheltered in the house of the tenant to whom he was referring. This man also would give no information. Were the landlords to take such men as these back again? There must be a limit. Some of these men who were Campaigners and were evicted were known to the police as suspects of the worst kind. A number of them did their worst to force on civil war, such was the combined violence of their opposition to the execution of the law. It was done to hamper the Government, but for the Campaigners the worst tactical blunder was that which disqualified them from any future tenancy. They themselves shut the door in their own faces. On the other hand, a number of those who quietly gave up possession were, in consequence, put back.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the time has come when it is my duty, on behalf of my friends behind me, to sum up what has passed in this Debate, but I own it is a duty which I look forward to with apprehension, and difficult to perform on account of the extreme meagreness of the arguments in favour of the Bill with which I shall have to deal. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was principally occupied in variations of different kinds upon the old tune of tu quoque. Something that somebody had said or done at a previous period appeared to him to be a sufficient justification in the eyes of Parliament and of the public of principles and provisions which might be objected to in this Bill. Does the noble and learned Lord seriously believe that the English people will take a bad Bill more willingly from the present Government

  957
  because it is proved—if it can be proved, which I deny—that some previous Government produced something equally bad? Such arguments appear to be entirely irrelevant, and I shall not follow the noble and learned Lord in that line. But I will notice one reference which he made to our conduct, to our present and recent conduct, because he did me the honour to appeal to myself immediately. The noble and learned Lord dwelt with extreme eloquence upon the sufferings of the tenants who have been evicted in Ireland, and many other noble Lords have done the same. The idea that appeared to fill their minds was that we were all destitute of any compassion or sympathy for misfortune, and only animated by a vindictive feeling against those who had broken the law. I defy him to find in the speeches of any representative men on our side in either House of Parliament any justification for that view. We have always desired that compassion and mercy should be exercised as far as possible. We have wished that this Bill should assume a compassionate form in which it was possible for us to concur with the Government in relieving those who had, perhaps unjustly, suffered, in mitigating the sufferings and punishment of others, perhaps the large majority, whose real offence was that they had been duped by men more practised and less scrupulous than themselves. And even if such a measure had in its effect relieved the punishment due to men for whom little extenuation could have been said, we would willingly have accepted a provision of that merciful kind in view of the general duties of rulers to exercise mercy, and the special duty of doing it where bitter feelings have to be healed, and the remembrance of past contests have to be effaced. But we must do it without sacrificing the rights of others or injuring innocent persons. We cannot consent to do what is called healing a sore and conjuring danger by flinging to these evicted tenants another slice of the attenuated rights of Irish landlords. The noble and learned Lord seemed to me to flinch from discussing that which is the central point of the Bill—namely, the power and position of these Arbitrators. The peculiarity of the Bill is the enormous power, the unprecedented power, which is given to three men over the property and rights of a large body of
  958
  Irish landlords. To refuse to discuss the constitution and character of the arbitration is to flinch from dealing with the most essential part of the Bill. Arbitration is a sort of despotism. It is a little bit of despotism. Like many other great poisons, despotism, if taken in very small doses, and with very great precautions, is a wholesome medicine, and that is the case with arbitration; but then it does not follow, because you take it in certain cases, with careful precautions against its abuse, that therefore you are entitled without restraint and without guidance to fling down before the feet of any arbitrators who may be chosen the rights of men to be dealt with in an undefined manner according to no standard and under the guidance and protection of no law. The arbitration of these gentlemen is wanting in the most essential characteristics of arbitration. The noble Lord the Privy Seal appeared to imagine that all that was wanting to secure the success of the experiment was to give the Arbitrators a free hand. But arbitration, to be satisfactory and effectual, must satisfy two conditions: The Arbitrators must be acceptable to the persons over whom they are to arbitrate, and they must be impartial men. Neither of these conditions is satisfied in the case of the present Arbitrators. They are notoriously imposed by force upon the landlords of Ireland. They would be utterly unsatisfactory to them, and they are not impartial men. I do not wish to say a word that can hurt the feelings of these three gentlemen or can cast a slur upon them. I am ready to attribute to them all capacities and all virtues. But when I say that they—or rather the two of them who form the majority—are not impartial; that in the conflict which divides every home and almost every family in Ireland, they have a distinct bias, I am only asserting of them that what I am afraid is true of all Irishmen, or very nearly every Irishman, and it certainly casts no slur whatever upon their honour or their character. The noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty spoke highly of the character and capacity of these Arbitrators. I think he must have forgotten the time when we were discussing in this House the strange proceedings of Mr. Fottrell, who was the old solicitor to the Land League, and who, after he was solicitor to the Land League, was made solicitor

  959
  to some Government Department, and in that character published and circulated, through the machinery of the Government Department, a pamphlet praising the language and character and maintaining the doctrines of Michael Davitt. Well, Mr. Fottrell is a tenants' man. He is not a worse man for that. We must all have our opinions, and he has his. But he is not impartial. He may have every virtue, but he is not impartial. With respect to Mr. Greer, I believe him to be a very learned and a very able man, and I again disclaim most earnestly any wish to say anything that can be wounding to his feelings; but it is a matter of fact that he has been giving evidence before a Committee of the House of Commons during this summer, and that he has given evidence in the strongest way upon all the burning questions that are at issue between landlord and tenant; he has given evidence in favour of the tenant. Again it is no disgrace to him. We must all take our sides. But he is not an impartial man. And to give these enormous powers over the landlords of Ireland to two men who are not impartial is entirely to misconceive the nature and the character of the functions of arbitration, and to convert it into the worst of despotisms. It is no use to tell me that these Arbitrators will often perform justice, and that they are very excellent men. The men who sat in the Star Chamber were very excellent men, and they very often performed justice. They did not cut everybody's ears off. But still we have all had since that time a very righteous horror of abandoning without restraint, without law, without guidances—abandoning to Judges, however eminent, unrestricted power over the rights and liberties of their fellow-men. I daresay many of the men of the Revolutionary Tribunal were very excellent, and they certainly possessed that one characteristic which the noble Lord the Privy Seal desires, they had a free hand. The Sultan of Morocco, the Sultan of Turkey, and the Shah of Persia all have a free hand. I do not wish to say a word that would injure the feelings of these potentates. I desire to attribute to them, as I do to the Arbitrators, all capacities and all virtues, but I say they would not be impartial Arbitrators; and nothing is more astonishing or painful to
  960
  me than the way in which numbers of politicians, many of them belonging to schools that affect a special guardianship over the liberty of mankind, are willing, for the slightest Parliamentary or political object, to band over the property and the rights of their fellowmen to the unrestricted and unguided power of persons who certainly have no special attribute of impartiality to commend them to such a tremendous office. Another very interesting thing—a matter that has appeared to me to reveal itself in this Debate—is the development, if I may use a slang word, the evolution, which is taking place in the landlord, or rather the landlord of popular apprehension. In my youth the landlord was rather a respectable person; he was admired, and people were willing to think well of him rather than ill, As I grew older the balance seemed to me to incline until at last there was a little doubt about a landlord, but still he was recognised as a human being who had the same claims to justice as any other man, and to whom, however, unwillingly the rights of British citizenship should be freely accorded. But we are advancing beyond that. The landlord is assuming the position of the Jew of the Middle Ages or the pariah of India. He is an outcast. He is a man for whom we may have compassion and sympathy, but who has no rights. Look at this Bill. If an old tenant wants to be reinstated, and there is a new tenant or planter in his place, that planter's consent must be obtained before the process can be completed. I admit that in saying so I am speaking merely technically. We all know how that planter's consent will be obtained. It will be obtained by the operation of rural public opinion, and the manner by which rural public opinion operates is to drag man out of his bed and shoot at his legs. But still, technically, and setting aside that material qualification, the planter is in the position of having the veto upon the operation. And what is the condition of the landlord? He has no veto at all. If it is proved that he is in possession, the operation must go on, whatever his feelings may be; and I do not know that it has occurred to your Lordships to notice that the 15 years which may have elapsed since the tenant to be reinstated was evicted is larger than the period of prescription which is now by

  961
  the English law sufficient to ensure another man's land to any man who occupies it. So that if a landlord went for another man's land, and occupied it for 12 years, he would be absolutely safe against anything anybody could say, but if he is impertinent enough to remain on his own land he is turned out. And so keen is the jealously of this new law lest the landlord should enjoy his own, that if there is any suspicion that the planter is not what they call a bonâ fide tenant—I do not know what a bonâ fide tenant is; it may be that he is like a bonâ fide traveller, subject to considerable doubt—the law will hunt the tenant and landlord out alike. The landlord must not attempt by these clandestine subterfuges to go in and enjoy his own. If it can be proved by any process, however indirect, that the result of leaving the planter on the land is that the landlord will still enjoy it, the new law is equally merciless to the landlord and to the planter both. It goes so far that, if there is a bit of laud of which a planter has half and the landlord has half, special machinery is put into the Bill to prevent the landlord, as it were, skulking behind the planter to enjoy his half of the land on the strength of the planter's title. Now you see the real position which the landlord occupies in the eyes of the Liberal Government. This is the evolution of the landlord's position, and so much has this legislation affected noble Lords that the tone which has pervaded the speeches of the Lord Privy Seal and of the Lord Chancellor is that eviction is a positive crime. If they can say that a man has secured the payment of the rents that are due to him by the process offered by the law, that is a crime so heinous as to justify the enactment of special provisions to his disadvantage. Of course, Her Majesty's Government and those who follow them have considered the effects of this policy, and, no doubt, would not object to any obvious results that it might effect. They will follow the last landlord, or landlords right, to the grave with a dry eye. But I want them to consider that—by that mysterious inter-connection which brings together all human actions and all human procedure, and forces the human mind that has once given way to a particular set of motives to give way to them again on any analogous occasion—other contracts besides those of land will
  962
  be subjected to the same idea. The feeling will very soon spread that anybody who has a right to anything, and who uses any process of the law to recover it, is liable to the thunders that are pronounced against the evictor and the laud-grabber. "Base is the slave that pays!" That is the philosophy of the future. I know that the Lord Chancellor and many others take refuge behind the belief that this is only an exceptional act of legislation and an exceptional outburst of sympathy and pity; that it will not count in the future; that nobody will think of it when this time is past. We have heard a great deal of exceptional legislation in our time, and by this time we know what it means. When the Irish Church was abolished we were told that it was purely an exceptional Act, and could not affect any other Church. But already the Church of England in Wales and the Scottish Church are formally threatened, and not obscure preparations are going on against the English Church. Later on we had the Irish Land Bill, and again we were told that it was a thoroughly exceptional measure; that there was something so thoroughly exceptional in Irish affairs, and Irish proclivities, and in the Irish people, that it need not be feared that the special indulgence given to them would ever spread to the advantage of any other class in any other part of the country. Already that law has found its way to the crofters of Scotland, and is demanded by the farmers of Wales, while I have heard suggestions of applying it to the farmers of England. So matters go on. You cannot make exceptions. It is not within human ingenuity to make exceptions on a great subject where human passions are concerned and great prizes are offered to the greed of large bodies of men. You cannot make exception in favour of any particular act of legislation in departures from the principles on which your law reposes and say, "For the future this will not count." You may be perfectly sincere in desiring that exception; but human nature would overrule any precautions and any protests that they might make, and the sin against principle which you commit will come up against you whether you like it or not on some other subject more or less germain to that with which you have been dealing. Nothing has struck me more than the

  963
  refusal of the Government to look to the future. Over and over again they have been asked what the effect of this legislation will be, and how they intend that I the social machinery of Ireland shall go on in future, and they always shrink from the challenge and refuse to tell us how they are to prevent the example from spreading to other cases and affecting other bodies of men. The tenants who have not refused to pay will see that they took the wrong side, and that they would be in a better position had they refused to pay. But they will not make the same mistake a second time. There are purchases of land which are making Great Britain—as, I think, Mr. Chamberlain said—the largest landowner in Ireland. What motive will the tenants have for paying their instalments? Up to this time they have had before them the fear of the law and the penalty of eviction. They will now know that, however definite the provisions of the law may be, however clear the rights of the landlord may be, if a proper crisis in political events is taken, if the proper machinery of agitation and pressure is applied to the House of Commons, the penalties which the law threatens for non-payment will not be inflicted, and that they can safely dare all the threats and all the danger which a refusal to pay their just debts has up to this time subjected them to. Where is your security for the payment of their instalments by the men who have purchased with loans from the State? What chance is there of purchase going on if this Bill passes and all security is broken and contracts made worthless and the legal remedy for the breach of contract is covered with disrepute? And if purchase is discouraged or prevented, what hope is there of any real or permanent or friendly settlement of the agrarian dispute which for so many centuries has exercised the soul of Ireland? Now there is another class of people whose case I have not heard mentioned. This Bill begins—
  "If, in the opinion of the Arbitrators, the Petition shows that the landlord is or was on April 19, 1894, in occupation of the holding."
  How about evictions that took place on April 20, 1894, and subsequently? Curiously enough, a Paper was circulated this morning showing how many evictions there have been during the last three months in Ireland, about the time
  964
  that has elapsed since the date mentioned here. There have, in that time, been 1,770 evictions, but the men evicted will get no relief whatever from this Bill. There have been 1,770 evictions, nearly half the number of men whose sufferings and sorrows you say require the passing of this Bill. These 1,770 men will see themselves evicted without any relief whatever from this Bill. The man evicted on April 17th will be restored, but the man evicted on April 20th will be in a hopeless condition. Do you imagine that such a peculiar way of exercising justice is likely to secure peace and quietness in Ireland? We are told that one tenant cannot bear that another tenant should sit at a lighter rent than his, and that if it is done there must be disturbance; but if a tenant sees that a difference of three days in the date of his eviction means all the difference between reinstatement and ruin, you may be certain that there will still be a sore and a danger. You may be certain that in these circumstances you will be told again in another year that the condition of the evicted tenants still presents a serious difficulty in Ireland. What are the Government going to do? Are they going to bring in an annual measure? Will there be a provision in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill every year for the reinstatement of the tenants who have been evicted during the year? How are you going to deal with this case and the case of the new tenants? Believe me you cannot make distinction where no distinction naturally exists; your want of logic will always be found out by the keen eyes of human greed and interest, and you will be forced to go further and further down on the dangerous path upon which, in order to meet a temporary political emergency, you have entered. The noble Lord the Privy Seal (Lord Tweedmouth) addressed a good deal of wholesome advice to the House last night. I observe that this propensity is often found in new Members who come to us from the House of Commons. The noble and learned Lord has been a long time on the Woolsack and has nearly worn the propensity out, hut he nevertheless talked to us a little about the stability of this House being involved in its treatment of his advice. The noble Lord the Privy Seal was much more frank, and addressed us in the fresh and keen lan-

  965
  guage to which he has been accustomed in another place, speaking constitutionally. The noble and learned Lord—I beg his pardon, he is not learned—said—
  "He regretted greatly the attitude which their Lordships had taken up with regard to this Bill. They did not form the best tribunal to deal with a question of this kind."
  Of course, that only meant that he was in a minority. He wont on to say—
  "They were, in the first place, a House of landlords."
  I am entitled to differ from the noble Lord as to the matter of fact. I know a great many Members of this House who in no sense can be called Members of a House of landlords. They may possess a certain amount of land, but I submit that every kind of eminence and every kind of property has a large representation in this House. In the second place, the noble Lord said—
  "It was a dangerous thing in these days for a special body of men to decide a great question when they were not in constant and daily contact with the general mass of the electorate."
  I confess to a slight feeling of pity for any person who is in general contact with the general mass of the electors, because it would involve an amount of personal exertion which not anyone could get through. The noble Lord's words mean that it is a dangerous thing for us to decide anything, and the noble Lord's view is that we should decide no great questions. I do not suppose he willingly came across the interval that divides the two Houses, but it is very kind of him on crossing the Central Hall to bring with him for our improvement and enlightment the result of his meditations elsewhere upon our fate. The advice of the noble Lord who has conveyed to us that the atmosphere of this House, the genus loci, oppresses him, will in future have greater effect on our minds if he does not accompany it with bluster which nobody regards and with menaces which everybody knows to be hollow. He deliberately told your Lordships that, in his judgment, in rejecting this Bill we were making a great mistake which we would live to rue. Our living to rue it is, of course, a question of prophecy upon which one man's opinion is as good as another's. If I look to the past I quite admit that
  966
  second Chambers are not immortal. I see that in France six or, I think, seven second Chambers have disappeared in the course of this century; but I observe also that in every case the popular assembly that sat with the second Chamber disappeared at the same time. If the noble Lord will carry his historical recollection back he will, I think, find that what happened 250 years ago does not differ very much in its indications from the examples that I have cited. Your Lordships will remember in Quentin Durward, when Louis XL, intending evil to Martius Caleotti, his astronomer, asks him to prophesy when he, the astronomer, would die, the reply of the astronomer was—
  "I cannot tell that with respect directly to myself; I can only tell with reference to another; but I shall die three days before Your Majesty."
  If the noble Lord insists on my easting the horoscope of this House, I say it will perish a few months before the House of Commons. But I have noticed these observations of the noble Lord not for the purpose of bandying prophecies with him as to the probable duration of this House, which is an exceedingly unprofitable occupation, but for the purpose of entreating him to abandon a style of argument which I am sure must lie most repulsive to his own nature, and which he can only have adopted from somewhat underrating ours. Surely it does not make any difference in our duty whether we are likely to lengthen or to abbreviate the existence of this House. The institutions of this country and the traditions of centuries have left a great power in our hands. Whether it is abstractedly the best or not is no matter or question for us in the exercise of our duty to judge. It is our business to perform a duty that has been placed in our hands according to our conscience. It is our business to resist dangerous measures which we think have, under a delusion and with insufficient motives, been accepted by the other House of Parliament, and that duty does not become less when we observe that if Great Britain had voted alone this measure would not have crossed this Hall. But the duty is one that we shall not exercise with the less earnestness or the less consciousness of right when we consider the peculiar Parliamentary condition to which it owes

  967
  its origin. You tell us it was urgent; you tell us that the sufferings of these men on the hillside have moved your hearts, so that you could not stop; and you are bound even now at this time of the year, suppressing the privileges of the House of Commons, to try to force this measure through Parliament. What have you been doing for two years? During the two years you have been in power the sufferings of these men have been as keen as they are now. Their claim on your compassion and on your sympathy has been as great, and they had not less right than now, if they had any rights at all. You might even have pushed aside the Home Rule Bill for the purpose without any great extravagance if your sympathies were so greatly moved. But even treating that as an impossible sacrifice, was the Employers' Liability Bill or the Parish Councils Bill a matter of such supreme importance that the agonising sufferings of these heroic men could not induce you to give a few of those weeks that were abandoned on very unsatisfactory measures to the salvation and the rescue of these men? There was no urgency at all; the urgency was Parliamentary. The Budget had to be got through, a dangerous and difficult Budget. It wanted votes; those votes were for a price; they were given on the condition that a particular Bill should be offered to the Representatives of the constituencies of the South and East of Ireland. It is a process of log-rolling which has eaten so far into the purity of our Constitution, which is hastening every year the time when Parliament will be no longer looked up to in any part of the country as an impartial arbiter of the destinies of the nation. I hope that is an evil peculiar to a passing crisis, and when we have surmounted that crisis it will pass away. But be that as it may, there can be no contingency that calls more loudly for the exercise of the ancient powers of this House than an occasion when the House of Commons, yielding to these inferior, secondary motives, has passed a Bill which digs at the root of all society, makes contracts hopeless, and prosperity impossible.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: It will not be my duty to intrude long on your attention to-night. ["Hear, hear!"] I am glad to hear that cheer from the noble Lord on the Cross Benches. Indeed,
  968
  so far as my knowledge of Irish questions is specially concerned, I, for one, should not care to intervene in this Debate at all were it not that I hold a high and responsible position unworthily—possibly, as the noble Duke has so kindly stated, very inadequately and temporarily. But, still, I hold it; and it is my duty, as it would be the duty of the noble Marquess to take, as I take, a most serious and responsible view of this matter, and not as he has thought fit to take and view this matter, as a subject for gibes at the cruel sufferings of those who have been moonlighted in Ireland,, and in other respects. I am in the recollection of the House. The noble Marquess, amid the laughter of his own side, called attention to what was the effect of rural opinion, saying that it meant a man being dragged out of his bed and having his legs shot. It is, therefore, I say incumbent on someone on these Benches to come forward and take a more responsible and serious view of the subject than the noble Marquess has thought fit to take. One point which has struck me more than another in the course of this long Debate is this—the hothouse atmosphere in which) we live. I do not desire to associate myself too much with the breezy language of my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal, who spoke with a raciness with which I cannot compete, and which I freely admit belongs rather more nearly to the other House of Parliament than to this. But I do associate myself entirely with the sentiment of his, that it is impossible for a Legislative Assembly in these days, to conduct discussions of matters of high Imperial importance, vital to the peasantry and to the landlords in any part; of this island, without some more immediate contact with the constituencies than your Lordships have. I will not follow my noble Friend in the language which has been described as the language of menace. Neither will I follow the noble Marquess in the language which I may characterise as the language of contempt which he has addressed to the other House of Parliament. The noble Marquess lamented any necessity for contact with the constituencies at all. [Cries of "No!"]
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I said it would be a very disagreeable thing to have a constant general contact

  969
  with the whole of the electorate, because of the labour which would be constantly imposed.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: That labour exists already. It is long since the noble Marquess left the House of Commons, and times have changed.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Nobody in the House of Commons has contact with the whole of the electorate.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: The 670 Members jointly have a constant and immediate contact with the whole of the electorate. Anyone travelling 365 days in the year and visiting two constituencies a day, would only just be able to visit the whole of the constituencies in the country, and therefore I put myself in the hands of the House. I cannot presume that the noble Marquess would attribute such an idiotic performance to any Member either of this House or of the other, and therefore he was in reality pouring deliberate contempt upon the idea of your Lordships having any more immediate and constant contact with the constituencies than you have at present. There was one speech which, it seemed, amused the noble Marquess. But I am not sure that his supporters will be so amused when they read it to-morrow morning. There was one speech preceded that of the noble Marquess, and which showed me, and I confess with surprise to me, more acutely even than his own, in what a hothouse atmosphere we live in this House. It was with surprise that I heard the noble Marquess, who sits as a supporter of the noble Duke, excite the merriment of your Lordships by a recital of the proceedings on his estate. He said it was as good as a play. If so, then that play is a tragedy. We have been frequently asked by the occupants of the opposite Bench, what is the meaning of the Arbitrators of this tribunal having a special reference to the circumstances in any particular district? I should not have mentioned the noble Marquess had he not chosen to mention himself. But he is one of the cases that we had in our eye in framing that clause. And though the speech may have moved the merriment of your Lordships to hear what the circumstances of that estate are, it might not altogether so move the ratepayer or the taxpayer in connection with that district, when they remember that his evictions have
  970
  already cost the ratepayer and tax payer some £23,000, and that between 20 and 30 of his tenants are under police protection at this moment. When he comes down to this House to make a joke and a jest of circumstances of this kind he mistakes, as I believe, the character of your Lordships' House; and at any rate, if he does not mistake your Lordships' character, he mistakes the character of the question before us. The noble Marquess opposite, in his remarks to-night, has shown no consciousness whatever that there is any question at all to be dealt with. He has passed his quips and cranks, and no one could have enjoyed them more than I should have done had they been on a subject of less immediate urgency and importance. He has passed his quips and his cranks round and round the Bill. He has touched on various details connected with the Bill. But I ask your Lord ships whether anyone listening to his speech to-night could have believed that, in the opinion of himself or his supporters, there is a question to be dealt with of most vital and urgent importance and necessity. It has been acknowledged by Mr. Balfour, and by other authorities who have been cited over and over again. And when the Leader of the House of Commons has acknowledged in the fullest and freest manner that there is a great question for treatment at hand I should hope that the Leader of the House of Lords—for such the noble Marquess is in reality—would not have disdained to admit there was such a thing. We have had the same acknowledgment, strongly put before us by my noble Friend on the Woolsack, from one who is no friend of our Party, Mr. T. W. Russell, whose acquaintance I have not the honour to possess, but who, I understand, was roaming the Lobbies in a state of rebellion for a considerable time when the Amendment against this Bill was to be moved. But, above all, we have had testimony of a kind the most remarkable, in my opinion, from a man whose speech, whatever else may remain of this Debate, will long endure in the annals of Parliament. I allude to the speech of Mr. Courtney. He spoke as an ardent and devoted follower of the noble Duke. He had every pressure of association and circumstance to hold his peace on this

  971
  subject if he did not agree with his associates. But he made an appeal to Parliament and the House of Commons, and, what I think is more important, he made an appeal to his own Party. He said in effect, "Remember that this is a question which must be dealt with. It is not one which you can quibble with or refine. One Party or the other must deal with it, and deal with it promptly." And yet, in spite of all these witnesses to the truth, the noble Marquess makes a speech in which, I will not say he does not indicate a possibility of compromise, but in which he does not indicate even any necessity for compromise or for legislation at all. I say that that is a somewhat melancholy revelation. He seems to think that we have delayed in this matter. He argues that we might have brought in a Bill last year having a bearing on this matter. We did recommend a Commission, and the Commission sat. But from all that the noble Marquess has said no one could have any idea that that Commission, which is the root, the inception, and the foundation of the legislation which we are recommending to your notice, ever sat at all. In the course of last year we endeavoured to induce your Lordships, and we did induce the House of Commons, to pass an Irish measure which, in our opinion, would have settled this question, and many other questions besides. You chose to reject it in the exercise of a wisdom which I will not question. But I will question your right, after yon have rejected that Bill, and after you have rendered useless the efforts of an entire Session of Parliament, to say that we were indifferent to the evils which eat at the root of the prosperity of Ireland, and that we did not attempt to deal with them in the course of last year. The noble Marquess says we had an autumn Session, and might have dealt with that matter instead of with the Employers' Liability Bill and the Parish Councils Bill. The noble Marquess pays a great deal of attention to Great Britain. I myself have announced—and I do not shrink from a repetition of the statement, for it is not one of the speeches which the Duke of Argyll says I try to wriggle out of—I have announced that I regard England as the predominant partner in the Union, the most important, the most wealthy,
  972
  and the most populous, and therefore the partner to be specially consulted in matters relating to the partnership. As to laying our Irish policy before an Autumn Session, the only effect of that would be in our opinion to render two Sessions barren instead of one. The Autumn Session was only to give proper time to English and, I am sorry to say, Scotch legislation. We were asked last night—we were not asked, we were told—and when I say that I need hardly add that I refer to the admirable speech of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll). I will not refer to that admirable speech, because I have heard it often before, because, after all, the speech of the noble Duke only comes to the same strain he always sings, which is "Thank God, I am not as other men are!" He recited that speech with all the melody and all the rhetoric that he has at his command. Nor will I follow him in the discussion of our relative ages. It is not a matter of enormous importance to the world at large or the constituencies of Great Britain in particular, or even the evicted tenants of Ireland, to know that at the time I was born the noble Duke had already addressed his eloquent strains to, I trust, a not unappreciative audience—to the world and myself that is a matter of very little import. All I can hope is that if I live to reach the years of the noble Duke I shall have some share of the vigour and the eloquence with which he still addresses us, and even a greater share of Christian charity towards my neighbour. I say he did not ask; he told us that this Bill came up to this House on no authority at all. I will tell him on what authority it comes up. It comes up on the authority of the Commission appointed last year, and presided over by Mr. Justice Mathew. [Laughter.] I did not expect, I confess—though one hears strange things in this House—I did not expect to hear Judges openly laughed at by noble Lords in this House.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: The learned Judge said that he did not act as a Judge on the occasion.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: No Judge can so completely divest himself of his judicial capacity that it is wise or seemly on the part of any body of men to laugh at him when his name is mentioned; but I give my thanks to the

  973
  noble Lord. I recollect that when the Parnell Commission was appointed the slightest censure on any of the Judges who formed that tribunal, the slightest suspicion as to any judgment, was met with indignant philippics from the other side of the House. This Bill, therefore, comes on the authority of a tribunal which noble Lords may laugh at, but which was, in fact, a tribunal which not even the House of Lords can affect to disregard. What are the principles which the Report lays down? It says that the policy of reinstatement appeared to be clearly sanctioned by the 13th section of the Land Purchase Act of 1891; and it further stated that the condition of affairs by which large tracts of the country were allowed to be idle was most injurious. It then refers to the heavy charges incurred for protecting life and property. It went further—and I recommend this to the attention of the noble Marquess—and it said that these charges might have to be increased. The Report recommended that the Laud Commission, or a Special Commission, should be empowered to settle the disputes between the landowners and the evicted tenants. Now, that is the basis of the Bill. I venture to ask any noble Lord here whether he could gather from the speech of the noble Marquess that he took cognisance of these recommendations? The remarkable part of it is that, so far as this remedy, as it is a remedy at all, being ours or that of Mr. Justice Mathew's Commission, the remedy is in apostolic succession to the act of the noble Marquess himself. It is true that the 13th section of the Act of 1891 was a voluntary clause, but the noble Lord is not willing in a voluntary or compulsory form to continue it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is what I thought I indicated very clearly in the opening of my speech—that I was in favour of any measure which was not compulsory.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: What we want is acts, not words. We heard the sympathy of the noble Marquess, as we heard that of the Earl of Kilmorey, who said, I think, the same thing; but we looked for something more than vague expressions of sympathy from the responsible guide and controller of this House. I say, on the basis of the Report of the Commission, and on the authority of the persons I have stated,
  974
  there is a very grave question to be dealt with, and we have dealt with it on the lines laid down by the Mathew Commission. We cannot, therefore, be said to have acted unadvisedly, and I think we have the right when we find our Bill is to be rejected—not in favour of a voluntary plan, not by a Resolution which holds out any hope of a measure being produced by the noble Marquess, who in his leisure moments amuses his fancy with alien Bills or other subjects that occupy his attention—when our Bill, introduced on the responsibility of the Government, is to be rejected without the slightest alternative, I say we are entitled to consider what is the position of this House and those who form it. I recollect the views of those who have spoken as to a possible remedy, as to what they were disposed to propose. The noble Duke (of Devonshire), who, if he will allow mo to say so, made the most powerful speech I have ever heard him make, a speech which I envied him for making as regards its ability, only I wished I could have seen a little more consciousness that there was any interest but the landlord's to be consulted—and what is his remedy? He went off into a line which I could not precisely follow, but there was one distinct recommendation he did make, which was that the 13th section of the Laud Purchase Act of 1891 should be continued, and that was the one specific recommendation which the Commissioners, headed by Mr. Justice Mathew, emphatically stated it would be futile to carry out. They say—
  "We see no prospect of useful results from the re-enactment of this section, even without any such limitation of time as it contains."
  My noble Friend Lord Lansdowne—the ability of whose speech I also desire to acknowledge—was extremely happy in criticism, but when it came to any suggestion for anything to be done I do not think he was much more hopeful than the noble Duke. What did the noble Marquess say? He said that he was not altogether averse to a Bill of this kind which excluded the principle of compulsion. But what did he go on to say? He said he would be very willing to consider any precise and definite Amendments that we were willing to make with the object of removing compulsion from our Bill if we were pre-

  975
  pared to lay them on the Table of the House before the Second Reading was asked for. I have not been long in the position I have the honour to hold, but I do venture to say that no such proposition was ever asked of a responsible Government that they, on their authority and with a full sense of the responsibility which attaches to them, should make a proposition declaring that in their opinion, as we do declare, compulsion is necessary for the more flagrant cases to be dealt with under this Bill, and that then, on the mere ipse dixit of one or two Peers, we should, while asking for a Second Reading, be called upon to produce, on the other hand, an alternative Bill, which we should ask the House to pass also. The noble Duke (of Argyll) made a very good point, I thought, about the possibility of a Court sitting in one part of Ireland to fix rents and of another Court sitting in another part of Ireland in order to release persons from the payment of those rents; but I do not think that even that idea would reach the absurdity of a Government coming to Parliament with a Bill to authorise compulsion in one hand, and at the same time another Bill in its hand asking that the element of compulsion should be removed. I do not deny for one moment that there may be flaws in the Bill before the House. I never knew a Bill, and I do not think I ever knew an Irish Bill, in which there were no flaws to be found; and I say an Irish Bill because, after all, we know very well that the circumstances of Ireland are wholly exceptional. I heard with surprise to-night the noble and learned Lord the late Lord Chancellor and other debaters speak as if, and seemed to consider, that the circumstances of England and Ireland were completely analogous, and to ask in every case whether we should like the application of the particular law in question to the landed estates of England. It is too late to ask that question. After all, this Bill is meant to meet, as we believe, a great and vital emergency. It is only a step in the long course of evolution which has transformed the relations of landlord and tenant in Ireland. It began with the Bill of 1870; it went on with the Bill of 1881; it went on with the Bill of 1887, and it went on with the Bill of 1891; and there are other Bills which I do not wish to recall; but is it
  976
  possible, in view of that long course of exceptional legislation, to maintain that every phrase of our Bill is to be scrutinised as if it applied to Kent or to Yorkshire? After all, my Lords, you know as well as I do that the course of Irish land legislation has been one apparently to tide over the difficulty of the moment, but in reality to prevent what many of you believe is the sole source of the evils of Ireland—the tendency to agrarian revolution. And if in the course of that long legislation we have arrived at a state of things where, according to the testimony of all, the Land Purchase Acts are working with singular peace, singular good faith, and singular absence of arrears of payment, it is not much if we at this time of day endeavour to meet a crying and acknowledged evil with legislation which is also in its nature exceptional. I have only one thing more to say, and that is with special reference to the condition of things before your Lordships' House. I am expressly debarred from using the spirited language of the Lord Privy Seal. I have not his dash—it is because I have never been in any House but this, and that has impoverished my speech—but I do feel very acutely that there is a great deal more at stake to-night than the Bill before your Lordships. I am not for one moment going to say that your existence is at stake. I do not say it is any more at stake now than it was last year, or than it will be next year. I do not either wish to make myself the participator of the predictions of the noble Marquess opposite, who thinks that this House, if it falls, will necessarily drag down the other. But I do feel this, and I think that, without any undue contact with the constituencies, everybody must feel that there is in the air much respecting this House which should make this House walk warily. I, for one, have never disguised my conviction that since the passing of the Franchise Act of 1884 it is not possible for this House as at present constituted to claim co-ordinate jurisdiction with the freely elected Representatives of the people in the House of Commons. I do not go beyond that at this juncture. It is, perhaps, a considerable thing for me to say in the position that I occupy, but so much I do feel from the very bottom of my heart, and I venture to say that if every one of your Lord-

  977
  ships was to be free to speak absolutely what was in his mind at this moment you probably would not greatly differ from me in that opinion. What is it that is attacked, and attacked with considerable strength, at this moment? It is that right you propose to exercise to-night—your right to veto the result of the deliberations of the House of Commons. What is your position? The Government comes and puts before you an administrative measure which it says in its opinion is necessary to the security of peace and order in Ireland. That measure comes up with the approbation of the other House of Parliament, and with the -support of four-fifths of the elected Representatives of the island which it will a/Sect and the fairly-given vote of the House of Commons. You say for the most part that you are in favour of a voluntary Bill which, according to the acknowledgment of many, would deal with eight or nine-tenths of the cases that are at issue. In preference to offering any attempt at compromise in this direction, to give effect to your expressed views and policy, you utter a dead and sullen negative. With the Bill that is offered to you under this high and solemn responsibility you prefer the right of veto, which is perhaps one of the most dangerous functions of a Second Chamber, to the right of revision, which is, after all, one of its most useful functions. I was much censured last year for saying that you might well have chosen that wiser part and have revised the Home Rule Bill and sent it down, not necessarily for the acceptance of the House of Commons, but, at any rate, as a clear, honest, and outspoken definition of your policy in that matter. In this case I believe that that course would have been more expedient. At any rate, you would have been able to say that by the Act which we—I am now speaking in your name— are willing to pass, and which would probably have dealt with the great mass of claimant cases in Ireland, we are divesting ourselves of any responsibility for anything that may occur from the failure of this Bill. You take upon yourselves a very grave responsibility. It is too late, I suppose, now to ask your Lordships to pause for one moment and think how different the case might be if you in your responsibility were willing to
  978
  offer your alternative policy to ours, and at any rate to prevent this from being a barren Session as regards the hopes of: these evicted tenants. I suppose it is too late to hope for any such contingency, and therefore I will only conclude this inadequate appeal with a sentence from an often-quoted orator—the Duke of Argyll—and will ask you not to forget that on the great question of land in Ireland "we are playing with edged tools and with fire at the door of a powder magazine."
  THE DUKE OF ARG-YLL: May I ask the date of that quotation?
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Why, surely the noble Duke's ideas do not vary with time ! The date is 1880.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: Exactly, And since then the Act of 1881 has been passed. And I must say no quotation from my speeches before the Act of 1881 can fairly be made in this House with regard to my opinions upon the laud question after that Act was passed.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Then we may take 1881 as being a sort of "Hegira," a chronological period in the noble Duke's life, before which we are not allowed to make any reference to his speeches, but after which we have full licence and liberty to do so. The sentence I quoted has no reference to any particular condition. It is a question of Irish land. Does he suppose that dealing with questions connected with Irish laud is not playing with fire in a powder magazine now because the Act of 1881 was passed—that we are not in the same danger as regards the Irish Question? Does he suppose, in the circumstances disclosed by Mr. Courtney in his speech and by Mr. Justice Mathew in his Report, we are not in the same position as regards the danger of trifling with the Irish Land Question?
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: No, certainly not.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I do not care to labour the point. The point is merely a quotation, and I may say on the noble Duke's own authority an insignificant quotation under the present circumstances, but he is in the habit of quoting from other people, and he must not complain at being quoted in return. I will only say, in the words of the noble Duke, that even since 1881 the position of Irish land is one which does not allow

  979
  of trifling, which does not allow of dead negatives to the proposals of a responsible Government, and still less does it allow for the absolute ignoring of the wishes of the Irish Party in the House of Commons and of the House of Commons itself.
  On question whether the word ("now") shall stand part of the Motion?
  Their Lordships divided: —Contents 30; Not-Contents 249.
  Resolved in the negative; and Bill to be read 2a this day three months.

  CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 11) (LAGAN, &c. CANALS) BILL.—(No. 191.)
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment: Amendments made.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 210.)
  Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  HERITABLE SECURITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 202.)
  Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
  House adjourned at five minutes past Twelve o'clock A.M., to Thursday next, Three o'clock.