Sitting of 19 July 1894

QUESTIONS.

  INDIAN STAFF CORPS.
  SIR S. KING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has yet received an answer from the Government of India to his dispatch sent from the the India Office at the end of May this year, on the subject of the grievances of officers in the Staff Corps; whether he is now in a position to lay upon the Table the Papers relating to these grievances, including the Memorandum submitted to the late Commander-in-Chief and his suggestions thereon; and whether any decision, and, if so, what, has been arrived at on the subject?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): No answer has been received to my Despatch regarding the promotion
  358
  of officers of the Staff Corps, nor has any decision been arrived at on the subject. As I informed the hon. Member on the 31st May last, until the correspondence is complete the Papers cannot be presented to the House.

THE MOUNTJOY DEMESNE EDUCATIONAL BEQUEST.
MR. M. KENNY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state whether a bequest by one John M'Evoy, to found and endow a school at Knockmoyle for the education of children born on the Mountjoy Forest Estate, County Tyrone, is now being applied, so far as the endowment is concerned, to the use of a school at Dunmullen not on the estate; and whether the proper body exercising control in the matter of educational endowments will inquire into the facts of the case and correct any abuse that may be found to exist?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): I am informed by the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests that the bequest referred to does not contain any provision for the endowment of a school at Knockmoyle. The will made provision for the education of boys born on the Mountjoy Demesne, and the annual interest on the endowment, amounting to less than £8, is remitted for this purpose to the rector of the parish. The demesne, as such, has ceased to exist, and the rector has let it be known that he would devote the income to the instruction at the Omagh Model School of boys born on the estate, or, failing applicants for instruction at this school, to the general purposes of primary education in a school in the neighbourhood of of the demesne.

THE IRISH LANGUAGE IN IRISH SCHOOLS.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant for Ireland if there is any objection to appoint Professors of Irish for the Teachers' Training College in Marlborough Street, Dublin, under the direct control of the Commissioner, and if there are objections, in what these objections consist?
MR. J. MORLEY: The question of appointing a Professor to teach Irish at this Training College was referred by the Commissioners to the Professors of the Training College for their opinion; and their unanimous reply was that Irish could not possiby be introduced into the curriculum of the College except by the exclusion of some other subject of certainly more practical importance.

THE TIREE CROFTERS.
SIR D. MACFARLANE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if his attention has been called to a demand made upon certain crofters in Tiree by Mr. Sproat, who is fiscal and also agent for the Duke of Argyll, to pay half the cost of the erection of a march dyke; and, whether, in the absence of any agreement to contribute to the erection of the dyke, they can be legally compelled to do so?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR,): It appears that the march dyke between the farm of Greenhill in the Island of Tiree and the adjoining crofting township got into disrepair, and that the tenant asked the township to join in putting it in order. As they declined to do so, an action was brought in the Sheriff Court by the tenant, with the result that the Sheriff repelled the defence stated by the crofters, and found them bound to execute the repairs, giving them a reasonable time to do so. The time having elapsed without the crofters executing the work, it was done at the sight of a person appointed by the Sheriff, who subsequently granted a second decree for the cost. The tenant, I understand, has paid his part, but the crofters still refuse to pay theirs. As the question of liability has been litigated by the crofters, and they have not appealed against the Sheriff's decision, they are bound to obey the decree for payment.

DILATORY PUBLICATION OF THE ACTS OF PARLIAMENT.
SIR J. LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury who he is aware that much inconvenience is caused to the members of the legal profession, Clerks of the Peace, and officials of Public Boards by the dilatory publication of the Acts of Parliament; and
360
whether anything can be done to expedite the publication of the volume of Statutes at the end of the present Session?
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): My hon. Friend is, no doubt, aware that the separate Acts are, subject to unforeseen circumstances, published at once, after the Royal Assent is signified and the correctness of the copy proved. The question of the most convenient date for the publication of the volume was not long ago considered by a Committee specially appointed for the purpose, who considered that the volume might in an ordinary Session be in the hands of the public before the commencement of the Michaelmas Term, and this was the arrangement made. A great deal of editorial and other work in connection with the volume has to be done after the close of the Session, and it was judged that if the publication were hurried—which would necessitate leaving out valuable information now given—the public would lose more than it gained by the quicker issue. I can assure my hon. Friend that both I and the Controller of the Stationery Office are fully alive to the importance of expeditious publication of the Statutes.

ST. JAMES'S PARK.
MR. JOHN BURNS: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will cause to be re-opened, for children to play upon, several of the grass plots of which they have been deprived in St. James's Park; and whether he will follow the example in other parks and reduce the height of all the railings, and, in several cases, remove entirely the high and ugly cast-iron railings that obstruct the view of the gardens in St. James's Park?
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. H. GLADSTONE,): I should like to point out that St. James's Park is virtually one with the Green Park. If the amount of grass available in the former for a playground is insufficient, children can cross the Mall to the Green Park, where there are about 40 acres of grass unenclosed. The beauty of the flower beds and lawns in St. James's Park is a special feature, which I do not think anyone wishes to impair. But I am anxious that the enclosure

361
should not be more than is necessary, and I have given directions for a portion of the grass in the south-east corner of the park to be thrown open. A lighter railing, whenever practicable, will be substituted for the existing fencing, a good deal of which is unnecessarily heavy.
MR. PIERPOINT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can see his way to making the parks a little more decent and suitable for children by putting an end to the hideous ravings of political and religious tuft hunters?
[No answer was given.]

THE WEST HAM TOWN CLERKSHIPS.
MR. JOHN BURNS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been directed to the fact that the Town Clerk of West Ham, besides his clerkship, is also filling 16 other different offices, the occupancy of which necessarily conflicts with the proper discharge of his duties to the West Ham Town Council; and whether some limit should be placed on the number of offices a public official should hold?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. SHAWLEFEVRE,): I have no information as to the several offices held by the Town Clerk of West Ham beyond that given in the newspaper which my hon. Friend has sent to me, but if the facts are as stated the offices which he holds are unusually numerous. But I have no jurisdiction in the matter.
MR. JOHN BURNS: Am I to understand that the Local Government Board have not power to prevent town clerks and clerks to Boards of Guardians from taking private appointments? I have information of one case in which the number of such appointments is 17, and of another in which it amounts to 24—directly conflicting with the pecuniary interests of the ratepayers which a town clerk should watch.
MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: I am advised that I have no jurisdiction in the matter and no power to intervene.
MR. JOHN BURNS: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that East and West Ham are supplied with
362
gas by the Gas Company to which the Town Clerk of West Ham is solicitor, and that 7d. or 8d. more per thousand is being paid than ought to be? Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that the rates in that particular district are abnormally high, and that there are complaints of inefficiency and maladministration which the ratepayers believe to be due to the fact that the Town Clerk holds these 16 offices in addition to that of Town Clerk?
MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: I have not had any complaints on the subject, I believe the hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that the rates are very high, but to what that is due I cannot say.
MR. JOHN BURNS: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will decline to send one of his Inspectors to inquire into these allegations of maladministration, which many ratepayers believe to be the result of pluralism?
MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: I must wait till some official complaint is made to me. No such complaint has yet been made.
SIR C. W. DILKE: In the event of application being made to the Local Government Board to know whether there is any reason against the appointment to a particular office of a particular person will inquiry be made as to the offices already held by such person? Of course, that does not apply to town clerks.
MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: The only case in which I have jurisdiction would be on a fresh appointment of clerk to a Board of Guardians. In respect to that I will make inquiries in the direction indicated.
MR. BARTLEY: May I ask whether these appointments are not made by the Local Authority, who are absolutely appointed by the people under the present system of democratic Government?
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I was going to ask the same question. Is it not in the competence of the Town Council of this district to make arrangements with its town clerk as to paying him sufficient to make it unnecessary for him to hold these supplementary offices?
MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: I believe that is so.
MR. R. G. WEBSTER: Is it not a fact that while the right hon. Gentleman has full power and jurisdiction over clerks to Guardians he has no power whatever over clerks to Town Councils and Vestries?
MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: I have already said that I have no jurisdiction whatever over Town Councils. The only case in which I could interfere would be on the fresh appointment of an officer under a Board of Guardians, and then my power would be limited to defining what the salary should be.
MR. BARTLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question?
MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: Undoubtedly a Town Council has full power to appoint its own officers and fix their remuneration.
MR. BARTLEY: Then I understand this is a matter entirely for local arrangement, and what is sought is that the central government should over-ride the Local Authority.
MR. JOHN BURNS: Considering the helplessness displayed by the Local Government Board, in taking no step to prevent a grave public scandal, I give notice that when the salary of the President of the Board is under consideration I shall move to reduce it by £1,700, £100 for each berth occupied by this gentleman.

THE PACIFIC CABLE ROUTE.
MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, in view of the decision of the Ottawa Conference to recommend a complete survey of the route of the proposed Pacific cable and the conflicting estimates of the cost of such survey that have been published, he has any official information at his command upon which a trustworthy estimate may be based?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): The only information at my command is that which is contained in the "Charts and Sailing Directions" published by the Admiralty, and in a Report, published by the Government of the United States, of a survey of the Pacific between California and the Hawaiian Islands undertaken by American ships in the years 1891 and 1892.

THE AMERICAN STRIKES.
MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether any official corroboration has been received of the reported delay and destruction of Australian and New Zealand mails viâ San Francisco during the recent railway strike riots in the United States?
MR. A. MORLEY: There is no foundation for the statement published in certain newspapers that I have received an official intimation of the destruction of mails sent viâ San Francisco.

RINN AND BLACK RIVER DRAINAGE.
MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that portions of the drainage charge in the districts of Rinn and Black River, in the Counties of Leitrim and Longford, have been lately assessed by the Commissioners of Public Works on Alexander O'Connor, Drumharkan, Patrick O'Donnell, Mary Foley, senior, and Mary Foley, junior; whether he is aware that this charge had been previously paid by the Church Temporalities Commissioners; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made as to the liability of the Church Temporalities Commissioners, as proprietors in the terms of the charging order, to pay off the whole of this drainage charge before disposing of the glebe lands to the tenant purchasers?
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I am informed that the Rinn and Black River Drainage District Award was made on the 26th April, 1859, and the charge on the lauds referred to (Drumbarkana Glebe) was redeemed in 1872 by the Church Temporalities Commissioners. The Drainage Trustees, who are bound to maintain the works that had been executed, having neglected to do so, they got into serious disrepair. They were restored by the Board of Works under "The Drainage Maintenance Act, 1866," at a cost of £2,713 3s. 7d., which is repayable by the present proprietors in 24 half-yearly instalments under the Board's Charging Order of 28th April, 1894. The parties named are now proprietors, having purchased their holdings under the Church Temporalities Commission, and are liable to be assessed for the maintenance of works.

CARLOW LUNATIC ASYLUM.
MR. J. HAMMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that after three abortive elections an appointment to the post of physician to the Carlow Lunatic Asylum has been made by a majority of the Governors, and whether the Board of Control will now ratify the appointment?
MR. J. MORLEY: No official Report has yet been received of the proceedings at the recent meeting of the Board of Governors of the Carlow Asylum in relation to the appointment of an Assistant Medical Officer, though it appears from a newspaper report that such an appointment was made on the 13th instant. The appointment, however, is probationary only in the first instance, and will require to be confirmed by the Governors at a meeting to be held not sooner than three nor later than six months from the date of the probationary appointment. Should the appointment be then confirmed by the Governors, it will be submitted to the Lord Lieutenant for his approval pursuant to Statute.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the only point for the consideration of the Government, when the probationary term comes to an end, be medical fitness and conduct in office, and have no reference to antecedent circumstances?
MR. J. MORLEY: I am not quite sure, but I believe that is so.

SHOT FIRING IN MINES.
MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the disasters and loss of life which have take place in coal mines through the presence of coal dust and the dangerous use therein of shot-firing, the Government will be prepared to press forward a measure next Session carrying out the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Coal Dust, in their Report on 16th June, 1894, that the Secretary of State should be given further powers to limit and prohibit the use of gunpowder in fiery, dry, or dusty mines?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): I hope next Session to introduce a Bill dealing with the
366
matters discussed in the Report, especially with regard to shot-firing and coal dust.

DISEASE AMONG CANADIAN CATTLE.
MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture when the evidence taken in the recent inquiry into the lungs of certain Canadian cattle will be presented to the House; and whether he can now state the conclusion at which the Department has arrived thereon?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,): The evidence in question is of a very technical character, and will require careful revision, but I hope it will not be long before I am in a position to present it to the House. I stated on the 12th instant that there does not seem to be any prospect at present of my being able to dispense with the normal statutory requirement of slaughter at the port of landing in the case of cattle imported into this country from Canada, and I cannot at the moment add to this statement. I propose, however, to embody the facts upon which it is based in a reasoned Minute which will be included in the other Papers to be presented.

SECONDARY EDUCATION IN AYRSHIRE.
MR. BIRKMYRE (, &c.): I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the Education Department is aware that the grant for secondary education is being distributed in Ayrshire in grants to ex-VI. scholars in elementary schools in the county, as well as the secondary schools in the county; and whether this application of the money has been sanctioned by the Department?
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): The scheme for the distribution of the secondary education grant in Ayrshire provides for a certain amount being assigned to scholars in state-aided schools, who have passed out of the standards and are receiving some higher education. Such an application is justified by the purposes of the grant.

FISCAL POLICY IN NEW ZEALAND.
MR. DIXON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary

367
of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the New Zealand Times(the organ of the Government) of 9th May, 1894, contains a leading article advocating the substitution of paper currency for gold and silver; whether the Legislature in that Colony has the power to pass an Act for that purpose; and whether it would be competent for the Crown to veto such an Act were it passed by the New Zealand Legislature?
MR. HOGAN: Before the Under Secretary replies, may I ask him whether he is aware that the New Zealand Government is no more responsible for the opinions expressed by the New Zealand Times than Lord Rosebery is responsible for the opinions of the London Times or the hon. Member for South Belfast for the sentiments of the Freeman's Journal; and also is he aware that at the best-informed sources of information in London nothing whatever is known of the design attributed to the New Zealand Government in the question?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): Before I reply to the question on the Paper I will answer the one put to me by the hon. Member for Mid-Tipperary by saying that I know nothing about the international arrangement between the Government and the Press of New Zealand to which he has called my attention. My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston has showed me the article referred to in his question. But I think he must not assume that because a particular measure is advocated in a newspaper stated to be an organ of the Colonial Government that any such measure will be necessarily adopted by the Colonial Government. As regards the two last questions, the Colony has the power to pass such an Act as that suggested in the question. The Queen has power, if she should be so advised, to disallow such an Act; and the Governor is required by his Instructions to reserve for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure any Bill affecting the currency of the Colony unless in a case of urgent necessity.

THE PROVIDENT ASSOCIATION OF LONDON.
MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask the Presi-
368
dent of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the proceedings of a company, styled the Provident Association of London, more especially to the issue of so-called "House Property Bonds," and the ballots which take place periodically in connection with them; and whether, having regard to the dissatisfaction which is felt by a number of subscribers, he has power to order an investigation into the affairs of the company in order to remove the doubts which exist as to the solidity of its position?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BRYCE,): The circumstances of the company have not recently been brought to the notice of the Board of Trade, but if members of the company holding not less than one-fifth part of the whole shares of the company for the time being issued apply to the Board of Trade to order an examination into the affairs of the company their application shall receive careful and prompt consideration.

PRECAUTIONS AGAINST CHOLERA IN IRELAND.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of a possible visitation of cholera, and the fact that the President of the Local Government Board for England has deemed it advisable to supplement the work done by the permanent officials by the re-appointment of extra Medical Inspectors for another year, extra Medical Inspectors have been appointed in Ireland; and whether the Local Government Board for Ireland have made any request to the Government for the appointment of extra Inspectors; and, if not, whether the Irish Board are satisfied with the sanitary condition of the country generally and its preparedness to resist an epidemic of cholera?
MR. J. MORLEY: Treasury authority was obtained last year for the employment of an additional Inspector for a period of seven months for special work connected with precautionary measures against cholera. This term of employment expired on March 31st last. Application was made by the Local Government Board to retain the services of this temporary Medical Inspector for five months

369
longer; but as no positive necessity was shown at the time for the extra expenditure involved, I was of opinion, upon the information before me, that no case had been made out for then approaching the Treasury in the matter. In some localities much remains to be accomplished in the direction of improved water supplies, efficient drainage, and the removal of nuisances; but these, I apprehend, are matters for the attention of the Board's permanent staff, which contains four Medical Inspectors.

REGISTRY OF DEEDS OFFICE, IRELAND.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that a Royal Commission, reporting in 1881 upon the Registry of Deeds, Ireland, recommended that the office hours on Saturday should be from 10 till 2 o'clock, and that in order to give effect to such recommendation the Registry of Deeds Holidays Act was passed in 1883; whether he is aware that the officials, having enjoyed the Saturday half-holiday for 10 years, are now compelled to attend from half-past 9 to half-past 4 o'clock on alternate Saturdays, not only in direct violation of the Statute, but also of the Order in Council of August 15th, 1890, which reserved the existing privileges of all Civil servants; and whether he is prepared to restore to those officers the regular half-holiday which they were given by the Statute; and, if not, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Correspondence upon the subject which passed between the Registrar and the Treasury, in order that the matter may be discussed when the Estimate for the Department is taken?
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The Act of 1883 requires the Registry of Deeds to be closed at 2 on Saturdays for business. The Treasury are advised that this provision refers to business with the public, and does not exempt the staff from the ordinary rules as to attendance laid down by Order in Council for the Civil Service. The saving provision referred to by the hon. Member applies only to annual holidays. The existing staff of the Registry of Deeds received personal additions to their salaries when the seven hours day was introduced, and the rule of half-holidays on alternate Saturdays is an integral part of that system. There
370
is no correspondence on the subject which could usefully be published.

IRISH LIGHTS BOARD.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Irish Lights Board can give a contract without the consent of the Board of Trade; whether he is aware that the Appledore firm employs non-Union men at less than current Union wages; and whether he will take steps to ensure that in all such contracts the Fair Wages Resolution passed by this House is enforced?
MR. HARRINGTON: At the same time, I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether contracts for the repairs of vessels under the control of the Irish Board of Lights are given away by the Board of Trade or by the Board of Irish Lights; whether the tenders recently submitted included tenders from two Dublin firms, one of which had already satisfactorily discharged contracts for the Irish Lights Board; and whether it was a condition that the tenders should set forth the rate of wages given to the men employed by the different firms; if so, whether the contract was given to a firm that professedly employed men at wages far under the standard rate, and the duty of declaring the contract was discharged by the Irish Lights Board or by the Board of Trade?
MR. BRYCE: The consent of the Board of Trade is necessary to the validity of a contract accepted by the Irish Lights Commissioners. I have no official information as to whether the Appledore firm employ non-Union men at less than current Union wages; but Appledore being a small place it is possible that the rate of wages obtaining there may be lower than those in more populous districts; and I have seen a statement to the effect that they are lower than those generally current in the Bristol Channel District. The Irish Lights Commissioners are not a Government Department, and I am advised that the Board of Trade are not under their statutory powers entitled to refuse their consent to a contract made by the Irish Lights Commissioners, on the ground that the Commissioners have not made inquiries regarding the rates of wages paid by a contracting firm. In conveying the sanction of the Board of Trade to

371
the acceptance of the tender, the Board of Trade have urged upon the Commissioners of Irish Lights the propriety of giving effect in future cases to the resolution of the House of Commons of 13th February, 1891. In answer to the question of the hon. Member for the Harbor Division, I have to say that the contracts referred to in the question are entered into by the Irish Lights Commissioners, but the statutory approval of the Board of Trade is necessary to the completion of the contract. I am informed by the Irish Lights Commissioners that among the tenders recently submitted to them there were tenders from two Dublin firms, and I understand that one of these firms has been satisfactorily employed before; but these tenders were very greatly higher than the tender accepted by the Commissioners, subject to the sanction of the Board. The Irish Lights Commissioners did not make it a condition that the tenders should set forth the rate of wages given to the men employed by the different firms, and they inform me that they do not consider it their duty to make any inquiries upon this point. As I have explained to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Patrick's Division of Dublin, the Irish Lights Commissioners are not a Government department.
MR. HARRINGTON: May I ask whether, as a matter of fact, in the tenders submitted the rate of wages is not set forth? The right hon. Gentleman says he has no official knowledge of the rate of wages, but will he refer to the tenders themselves? If he will he will see that the rate of wages to be paid is given, and if the difference in the estimates is mainly due to the rate of wages, will the right hon. Gentleman consider himself justified in refusing his sanction to the contract?
MR. BRYCE: Speaking from memory, I believe the rate of wages is not set out in the contract; but, whether it is or not, the Board of Trade have not the power to refuse their sanction.
MR. HARRINGTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Board of Irish Lights defend their action in the matter on the ground that they have no power, and that the acceptance of the contract really rests with the Board of Trade?
MR. BRYCE: I have no reason to believe that the Commissioners of the Board of Irish Lights have made any such defence. Such conduct in the matter would be entirely in contradiction to the view that they have expressed to me.
MR. FIELD: May I ask whether, in the communication that has been received from the Board of Irish Lights, and which I have forwarded to the right hon. Gentleman, there are any statements which would bear such an interpretation?
MR. BRYCE: I am not aware that there is any statement in the communication referred to that would suggest that view.

LIVERPOOL LAIRAGES.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether complaints have reached him that foreign cattle landed at the Woodside and Wallasey lairages in Liverpool port have been subjected to injurious treatment through the want of a sufficient reception lairage, as required by the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts and by the Orders in Council in connection therewith; will he explain why memorials upon this subject from the trade to the Board of Agriculture have received no attention: whether the landing of cattle at night in the absence of electric light will be continued; and whether he will cause an inquiry into the matter complained of?
MR. H. GARDNER: Representations have recently reached me from one of the leading importers of cattle at Liverpool as to the insufficiency of the accommodation provided at the Foreign Animals Wharves at that port. Those representations have received attention, and I have caused inquiry to be made and have been in communication with the Mersey Docks and Harbor Board and with my correspondent on the subject. The pressure experienced appears to be due to the exceptionally heavy imports of live stock which have been recently received at Liverpool, and to the reluctance of owners to slaughter until the last possible moment in the hope of some improvement in prices being manifested. I do not anticipate any unwillingness on the part of the Mersey Board to provide additional accommodation if the expan-

373
sion of the trade should continue, and as evidence of this I may say that during 1893 additional provision for 1,200 cattle was made. I do not appear to have received any complaint as to the insufficient lighting of the wharves at night.
MR. FIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman send some competent person to make inquiries in the district?
MR. H. GARDNER: I have made inquiries.

POACHING ON THE SHANNON FISHERIES.
MR. W. KENNY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Francis Farrell, Daniel Farrell, and Patrick Farrell were convicted at the Patrick's Well (County Limerick) Petty Sessions on the 17th April last of poaching in the Several Fishery of the Shannon Fishery Company, and fined £5 each, and that, on the same occasion, they were convicted and fined for assaulting one of the servants of the company; whether these fines were reduced by the Irish Executive to the minimum penalty in each case—10s., notwithstanding the protest of the company; if the same men were convicted in 1892 of assaults on the company's water bailiffs, and in 1893 of trespass on the company's property, and if the fines imposed in 1893 were wholly remitted; and if he will state the grounds for the action of the Irish Executive in this case?
MR. J. MORLEY: The question states the facts with substantial accuracy. The mitigation of the penalties referred to in the first and second paragraphs applied only to the fines inflicted for the breach of the Fishery Laws, and did not extend to the fines imposed for the assaults committed on the servants of the Fishery Company. As stated by me in replying to a question by the hon. Member for South Tyrone on the 10th July, 1893, the fines inflicted on the persons named for a breach of the Fishery Laws in the previous April were wholly remitted by the Lords Justices after consultation with the local Justices, who had expressed approval of this course. The Magistrates who convicted at Petty Sessions on the 17th April, for the more recent offence, also recommended a reduc-
374
tion of the fishery fines to 10s. in each case, and this recommendation, as I have pointed out, was acted upon by the Lord Lieutenant.

THE CASE OF H. J. MACFARLANE.
MR. W. KENNY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he would state under what circumstances and on what ground Mr. H. J. MacFarlane was, in 1886, dismissed from the position of Local Government Board Inspector; if the only foundation for a charge against him was withdrawn; and if there was any reason why he should not have been entitled to a pension on withdrawal from his office?
MR. J. MORLEY: Mr. MacFarlane was removed from the position of Inspector under the Local Government Board in 1886 for grave irregularities on his part in the discharge of his duties and the persistent manner in which he disregarded his instructions. He was treated with the utmost consideration while he was an Inspector, and it was not until his irregular and unsatisfactory conduct reached such a point that his retention in office could not be any longer tolerated without great detriment to the Public Service that his dismissal became necessary. The charges against him were never withdrawn. Mr. MacFarlane had not served the minimum period which would have entitled him to a pension even if the circumstances connected with his removal had been such as to justify the Department in recommending him for one.

THE SOCIAL DEMOCRATS AND THE POLICE.
MR. KEIR-HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that on Sunday evening last, whilst a small and orderly meeting, for which leave had been obtained, was being held under the auspices of the Kentish Town branch of the Social Democratic Federation, the speaker, Mr. John Yallop, was arrested by the police, and conveyed to the district police station; whether the place is a recognized meeting place for religious and other bodies; and whether he will instruct the police to give the Social Democrats the same freedom in respect to meetings on

375
this place as is given to religious bodies?
MR. R. G. WEBSTER: This question affects my constituency, but I confess I do not understand it. I want to ask the Home Secretary whether this is a recognized meeting place for religious and other bodies?
MR. ASQUITH: I do not, I confess, exactly understand the hon. Member's question. With regard to the question on the Paper, I am informed that the Police Reports show that on Sunday evening, the 8th instant, a meeting was held at Heath Street Hampstead, and was addressed by Mr. Yallop. Complaint was made to a police-constable of annoyance caused, and there was actual obstruction to foot passengers. This was pointed out by the police-constable to Mr. Yallop, who, however, persisted in speaking, and ultimately the police-constable asked Mr. Yallop to accompany him to the police-station to see the Inspector. While on the way to the station the police-constable distinctly told Mr. Yallop that he was not in custody. Small meetings which do not cause actual obstruction are, I am informed, occasionally held at this particular place. It is a well-understood rule, and one to which the police are instructed to conform, that strict impartiality is to be shown in dealing with meetings, religious or otherwise.

THE ROYAL ARSENAL, WOOLWICH.
MR. KEIR-HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that 84 of the 85 men employed in the fuze department of the Laboratory of the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, refused to take out their pay lines last week on the score that the rates were unsatisfactory; whether the men have frequently complained to the foreman about their pay without obtaining redress; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the circumstances with a view to removing any grounds for dissatisfaction with the rates of pay which may exist?
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOODALL,)(who replied) said: Seventy-six men out of 150 employed on fuze work refused their pay tickets last week, but made no complaints as to their rates of pay or gave any ex-
376
planation of their action either to their foreman or other authorities. The average rate of pay of these laborers since the introduction of the 48 hour system has been 27s. 8d. per week On this occasion, owing to slackness of work, the pay fell to 25s. 8d. It will this week again rise to or above the average. Slackness of work must either be met by suspension of men or by their earning less wages.
MR. KEIR-HARDIE: I would ask the hon. Gentleman if it is not the fact that these men went over a month ago to the foreman to complain of the rate of wages, and got no satisfactory reply, in consequence of which they determined to have attention called to the matter?
MR. WOODALL: I am not aware whether that is the fact. I am inquiring into the whole matter, and, of course, if there is any reasonable ground to lead to the belief that there is a grievance, it will receive attention. The figures I have quoted show, at any rate, that the men in the department in question have no substantial ground of complaint.

TENDERS FOR THE NAVY.
MR. C. SHAW: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that recently, and for the first time, the usual forms of tender for certain hardware stores for the use of the Navy have been accompanied by an official Circular to the effect that all goods tendered for must be wholly produced on the premises of the contractor, and that the wages paid to the workmen must be at the usual average rate paid in the district for adult labor in that class of work; and whether he will undertake that similar notices shall accompany all tender forms in the future in respect to Navy boots?
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH,): In the case of contracts for locks, the Admiralty have found it necessary to guard against evils disclosed by inquiries which they made last year by requiring all the locks to be wholly manufactured upon the premises of the firm tendering. It does not follow that a similar stipulation is necessary in other cases—for example, the case of boots. The greater part of the work on Navy boots is done in factories. But in Northamptonshire and

377
other districts it has long been the custom to employ outworkers to do a certain portion of the work Such information as we possess points to the conclusion that the circumstances under which this is done are not unsatisfactory, and are totally different from those which proved objectionable in the lock trade. The Admiralty do not, therefore, propose to issue any notice.

THE CONTRACT FOR METROPOLITAN POLICE BOOTS.
CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there is any clause in the present contract for Metropolitan Police boots which would prevent the boots from being passed in the same way, and by the same Board, or a Board similar to that which passes the Army boots, instead of by one examiner at a salary of about £150 a year; and, if not, whether he will take steps to have this done until the contract in question expires; and whether, as the conditions of the contract in question is a public document, he will lay it upon the Table of the House?
MR. ASQUITH: No complaints have been received as regards the inefficiency of the present system of examination. It was adopted after very careful consideration, and there are no sufficient reasons for making any change. With regard to the second paragraph, I must defer the final answer, as I am in consultation with other Government Departments on the subject.

THE LUNACY COMMISSIONERS' REPORT.
MR. HARRINGTON (for Dr. KENNY): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the directions he gave to the Lunacy Commissioners in 1885 to issue their annual Report earlier in the year, when the Report for 1893 will be laid upon the Table?
MR. ASQUITH: The Report was sent to the House of Lords on the 18th June and presented to Parliament on the 19th June. I am informed that it will be circulated on Saturday.

THE SCOTCH LUNACY BOARD.
MR. HARRINGTON (for Dr. KENNY): I beg to ask the Secretary for
378
Scotland when the annual Report of the Scotch Lunacy Board will be presented to Parliament?
SIR G. TREVELYAN: I am informed by the General Board of Lunacy for Scotland that their Report will be ready for presentation to Parliament by the end of this month.

THE REPORT ON IRISH LUNATICS.
MR. HARRINGTON (for Dr. KENNY): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the annual Report of the Inspectors of Lunatics will be laid upon the Table?
MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed that the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums are using every effort to complete their annual Report for the year 1893—the greater part of which is in the hands of the printers—and that they expect it will be ready for presentation before the end of the present month.

THE CONGO STATE.
SIR C. W. DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have been kept informed by the Government of the Congo State with regard to the nature of the correspondence between the latter Government and that of the French Republic as to the recent Convention between Her Majesty's Government and the Sovereign of the Congo State?
SIR E. GREY: I must ask the hon. Baronet to apply to this question the answer which I gave to another question on Monday—namely, that I am not at present in a position to make any statement with reference to communications with the French Government respecting the Convention.

A JOURNAL FOR AGRICULTURE.
MR. COBB: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has yet completed the arrangements for the issue by his department of a periodical journal for agriculture on the same lines as the Board of Trade Journal?
MR. H. GARDNER: As my hon. Friend is aware, it has for some time past been my desire to make some movement in the direction indicated in his question, and I am happy to say that the Treasury have now placed at my disposal funds

379
for the purpose. We propose to make the journal a medium for conveying information as to matters of interest in connection with agriculture at home and abroad, the crop prospects in foreign countries, and other particulars obtained from sources of intelligence to which we have access. We shall also include notes on dairying, fruit farming, poultry rearing, and the smaller rural industries, together with short accounts of noxious insects and fungi. Certain statistics as to agricultural production, imports and exports, and prices will also be given. The first part will be issued early in September at the price of 6d.
MR. J. LOWTHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what is the amount of the funds for this proposal?
MR. H. GARDNER: I am not in a position to state.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Who will be the registered proprietor of this journal in case it should be necessary to bring against it actions for libel?
MR. H. GARDNER: I suppose it will be registered in the same way as the Board of Trade Journal.
MR. DODD: How is it proposed to circulate this journal? Is it to be circulated among the farmers or the Members of this House?
MR. H. GARDNER: Exactly in the same way as the Board of Trade Journal.
MR. TOMLINSON: I should like to ask whether the journal will give information as to the cost of sending agricultural produce to the market?
MR. H. GARDNER: I cannot give any information upon that point. If the hon. Member will buy the first number he will see for himself.

ALLEGED MISCONDUCT OF OFFICERS
MR. MOLLOY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been drawn to the conduct of certain officers in Birr Barracks upon a recent occasion, and the reported attack made by them upon the female servants of another officer; and what steps have been taken to investigate the charges made?
MR. J. MORLEY: I have received a Report of the alleged occurrences referred to. Seven summonses have been issued in connection with this matter, and the case will be investigated by the Magistrates at Petty Sessions to-morrow.

THE TRANSVAAL VOLKSRAAD.
SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is a fact that the Transvaal Volksraad have passed a Bill gravely restricting the right of public meeting, forbidding all outdoor meetings, and giving the police power to attend and disperse by force of arms, on their own responsibility, out-of-door meetings, and any other meeting of more than five persons; whether the severe penalty of two years' imprisonment and £500 fine is fixed for a breach of this oppressive law; and, whether Her Majesty's Government propose to protest against this grave infringement of the liberties of British subjects resident in the Transvaal?
MR. S. BUXTON: We have not yet received any official information on the subject.

THE RE-ADDRESSING OF POST CARDS.
MR. W. WHITELAW: I beg to ask the Postmaster General, whether post cards and halfpenny letters are liable to a second charge in cases in which the persons to whom they are addressed have permanently changed their address and have given notice of the change to the local post office with the request that all letters should be delivered at their new address?
MR. A. MORLEY: By halfpenny letters I understand the hon. Member to mean not letters proper, but circulars and other documents transmissible at the halfpenny rate. On all such postal packets, as well as post-cards, a second charge is levied in every case of re-direction.

A TRADE DISPUTE IN SOUTH WALES.
MR. RANDELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, arising out of a tinplate trade dispute, the workpeople interested held a demonstration at Gorseinon, near Swansea, on the 26th June last, and,

381
though orderly, were charged and batoned by a small body of police; that many persons who took no part in the proceedings were chased across the common and severely wounded by the police; that in the early morning of the following day some 18 or 20 tinplate workers were resting in a timber yard by permission of the proprietor, and whilst many of them were asleep, were attacked and bludgeoned over and through a barbed wire fencing which encloses the premises, and seriously injured by the police; can he state at whose instance, and by what authority, this attack was made; and whether a full inquiry, at which the injured persons may be represented and heard, will be made into the conduct of the police on the occasions referred to?
MR. ASQUITH: I have received a report from the Chief Constable of Glamorganshire, which traverses most of the statements in the question. I am asking for further information.

CONCILIATION BILLS.
SIR A. ROLLIT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the strong representations made in favor of the Second Reading and reference to a Grand Committee of the Conciliation Bills of the Government and of the London Conciliation Board, it is intended to press them forward, and, if absolutely necessary, to give some time for a Second Reading discussion?
MR. BRYCE: My hon. Friend is well aware that the Government are anxious that these two Bills should be referred to a Grand Committee; and I can assure him that I am very sensible of the strong wish that exists outside this House that the subject should be dealt with in the present Session—as I understand that there is no serious opposition to either Bill in any part of this House. I cannot but hope that the Second Reading of both may be forthwith taken by consent, having regard to the fact that no objection is raised to the principles of the Bills, and that the discussion of their details is a matter eminently fit for a Grand Committee.

THE UNIFICATION OF LONDON.
SIR A. ROLLIT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Report of the Unifi-
382
cation of London Government Commission is likely to be laid upon the Table before the end of the Session?
MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: The answer is "Yes."
SIR A. ROLLIT: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is the fact that the Report is in print, and only awaits signature?
MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: That I do not know.

THE OTTAWA INTER-COLONIAL CONGRESS.
SIR A. ROLLIT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any authorised Report of the proceedings of the Ottawa Inter-Colonial Congress will be furnished to the Government and to Members of this House, and will the Earl of Jersey's Report to the Government also be printed and circulated?
MR. S. BUXTON: Lord Jersey will in due course make a Report on the subject of his Mission, but until it has been received and considered it is impossible to make any statement in regard to it. It is understood that a shorthand report was taken of the proceedings of the conference, but there has not yet been time for any Papers on the subject to reach England.
MR. J. LOWTHER: Will that Report be circulated?
MR. S. BUXTON: Until we get Lord Jersey's Report we cannot say.
MR. W. JOHNSTON: I should like to know whether the Report of the Colonial Conference will be submitted to Members of this House?
MR. S. BUXTON: When we know the nature of that conference, and how far it may have been confidential, I shall be in a better position to answer that question.

THE SALARIES OF THE SCOTTISH LAW OFFICERS.
MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, now that he has finished consideration of the terms of remuneration of the English Law Officers, he is in a position without delay to redeem the pledge given by the Secretary for Scotland on 31st May last on behalf of the Government to proceed to the readjustment of the present inadequate salaries of the Scottish Law Officers?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): I have been much occupied lately, but I will now consider the question of the salaries of the Scottish Law Officers, with a view to placing them on a more adequate footing.

COMPOUNDING FOR STAMP DUTY.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Inland Revenue have, without assigning any reason, declared that they will not exercise the discretion vested in them by a recent Act to allow Limited Liability Companies to compound for Stamp Duty on transfers by an annual payment, and therefore have refused in every case recently to allow a composition; and has this action been taken on instructions from the Treasury; and, if so, by what authority do the Treasury claim the power to direct a Department not to act on a Statute?
SIR W. HARCOURT: The facts are as stated in the first part of the question. The Board in this matter have exercised the discretion vested absolutely in them by Section 115 of the Stamp Act, 1891. The fact is that experience has shown the Board that it is not expedient that the composition for Stamp Duty authorised by the section referred to should be made with regard to Limited Liability Companies. The Treasury would, if time had permitted, have introduced a clause in an Omnibus Bill to repeal the section authorizing agreements for composition in the case of such companies. Pending this, the Board, by virtue, as I have said, of their discretionary power, do practically refuse to allow companies to compound.
MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the second paragraph of the question. What business have the Treasury to meddle in a matter of this kind with another Department which is held by Statute to be in their discretion?
SIR W. HARCOURT: The Department naturally consults the Treasury on the subject. The Board of Inland Revenue does now exercise this discretion with regard to allowing composition; but it has been decided to propose, when an opportunity occurs, to repeal the section of the Act authorizing this discretion in the case of these
384
Limited Liability Companies. I had intended to introduce a clause into the Bill I have referred to that effect.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it the Treasury which repeals Acts of Parliament or Parliament itself?
SIR W. HARCOURT: The Treasury does not repeal Acts of Parliament at all The Act of Parliament gives discretion to the Inland Revenue to grant or refuse compensation, and the Inland Revenue have exercised that discretion by refusing, as they have statutory power to do.

THE BELFAST TELEGRAPH OFFICE.
MR. YOUNG: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he is aware that at Belfast lads under 18 years of age are employed as telegraphists in the Telegraph Department at 12s. a week on duties extending to 1.30 a.m., contrary to regulations; and will steps be taken to remedy this state of things?
MR. A. MORLEY: It is the case that five or six of the junior temporary telegraphists now employed in the Belfast Office are engaged on duties which extend to 1.30 a.m. This is not contrary to regulations, but the Postmaster is endeavoring so to re-adjust the duties as to exempt all youths under 18 years of age from attendance after midnight, and it is hoped that this arrangement may be found practicable for the future.

THE BELFAST SCHOOL OF TELEGRAPHY.
MR. YOUNG: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he is aware that 16 learners attending the School of Telegraphy at Belfast were recently advised to seek employment elsewhere, as there was little or no hope of their obtaining employment in the Telegraph Service; and whether these youths were admitted to the school on the understanding that if they passed their examinations successfully they would receive appointments?
MR. A. MORLEY: It appears on inquiry that employment for four hours a day (the other four hours to be spent in learning telegraphy) was offered to seven out of 16 learners at Belfast, but was only accepted by two. It has not been practicable to find employment for the other nine, and some of them were advised to seek employment elsewhere, but they were informed that they would be

385
sent for in turn as vacancies occurred. It is not the case that these youths were permitted to learn telegraphy on the understanding that if they passed their examinations successfully they would receive appointments.

ALLEGED SUPPRESSION OF AN IRISH MEETING.
MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether his attention has been called to a paragraph in the Dublin Daily Independent of Monday last from a Nenagh correspondent, stating that a public meeting which was to have been held on the previous Sunday at a place six miles from Nenagh for the purpose of denouncing a glaring case of Land-grabbing had been suppressed by an order issued the night previous, and that a large body of police prevented the meeting being held; and whether there is any foundation for the report?
MR. J. MORLEY: I have not received my hon. Friend's private communication, but to the best of my belief there is no foundation for the report. I am not quite sure, but I think not.

THE LOCAL VETO BILL.
MR. BROMLEY - DAVENPORT: I desire to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to move for leave to bring in a Bill to establish local control over the liquor traffic?
SIR W. HARCOURT: Sir, I made a statement on the subject yesterday.

ADJOURNMENT.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS (MINISTERIAL STATEMENT).
  Sir M. HICKS-BEACH,Member for West Bristol, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, "the statement made yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to Public Business during the remainder of the Session;" but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. Speaker called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen:—
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid: Sir, I certainly do not intend in any way to apologise for occupying for a short time the attention of the House on this matter in the only way it is possible to call attention to it, because I think there never was an occasion when a subject more urgently demanded discussion than the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday. What was that statement? I think it was received by the great majority of this House with a feeling of disappointment and surprise, a feeling by no means confined to Members of the ordinary Opposition. I do not mean that many, if any, Members were disappointed by the list of measures which the right hon. Gentleman stated it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to withdraw, and which have now disappeared from the Order Book. I cannot suppose that the least experienced Member of this House cannot have realized, many weeks before this time that these measures were nothing more than promises never expected to be fulfilled. Her Majesty's Government, in the most solemn way known to Parliament, inserted in the gracious speech from the Throne, a notice of their intention to ask Parliament to reform completely our system of Parliamentary registration, to adopt their favorite nostrum of one man one Vote, to disestablish and disendow the Churches in Scotland and Wales, to give to the people direct control over the liquor traffic—well-known items from the celebrated Newcastle Programme—bubbles blown to delude votes for other objects, which have now burst and disappeared into space. Sir, I do not know whether any hon. Member of this House regrets the disappearance of these measures, or is disappointed by their fate. For myself, at any rate, I pretend to no such feeling. They never ought to have been proposed or suggested by a responsible Government, and I am glad that they have disappeared. The disappointment to which I allude is of a very different kind. May I, in a couple of sentences, remind the House of the parliamentary history, so far as it affects the House of Commons, of the last two years? This Parliament was called together in the summer of 1892. Her Majesty's Government were not in a hurry—were wisely and properly

  387
  not in a hurry—to submit to Parliament any list of the measures which they intended to propose. They delayed to call Parliament together for the work of legislation until the 31st of January, 1893, and since that 31st of January, with the exception, I think, of five weeks last autumn, and a month last winter, this House has been in practically permanent Session without those ordinary relies from our labours which have been known in the history of all previous Parliaments. Sir, I believe we are all tired to death of this. I believe that is a feeling which is shared by all of us, from the Leader of the House to the youngest Member among us, and I think I might even appeal to hon. Members who are specially anxious for shortening the hours of labor of the working classes throughout the country whether among them there might not be found some who would most readily admit that the far more arduous and more difficult task of administering and legislating for this great country ought not to be attempted by jaded and wearied men and cannot be successfully conducted except by Ministers and Members of Parliament who, at any rate, for a considerable time during the course of every year, are free from the harassing and engrossing work of this House. The right hon. Gentleman has, I think, himself readily admitted the argument which I venture to put before the House. He has said if I remember aright, that continuous and continued work is neither good for the House of Commons or for the country. In the whole course of the present year the policy of bringing the Session to a conclusion in a reasonable time has been avowed by the right hon. Gentleman. When on April the 9th, many weeks earlier than I think ever fell to the lot of any former Leader of this Heuse—he invited the House, and successfully invited the House, to give up for Government business Tuesdays and Morning Sittings on Fridays, he then, I am sure, accepted that principle. When, again, on the 31st May he went further and took up the whole time of the House, he again, I think, urged that the concession should be made to him mainly on the ground of his desire that the Session should be brought to a conclusion in a reasonable time. On neither
  388
  occasion did the right hon. Gentleman ask for these exceptional facilities to be afforded him because of any unreasonable delay in the progress of business which the Government had brought before the House. On the contrary, he cordially recognized the assistance which he had received from us in carrying through the financial business which had to be completed for the first quarter of the year. He expressly stated at the end of May that he made no complaint against any section of the House, and said that he did not base his request for the whole time of the House on any anticipations of unfair dealing with public business in the future. He admitted that the financial proposals of the Government must take a considerable time, and that they contained large and novel principles which justified and demanded proper examination by the House of Commons. That proper examination they have received. Some hon. Members opposite may consider they have received it at too great a length. If that is their opinion, I would appeal from them to the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, who never, throughout the Budget Bill, for a moment suggested that he could ask the House to give him any greater powers to facilitate its progress than the Government possessed, and on only one occasion—an occasion which afterwards he practically had to admit was a mistake—attempted to closure the Debate during all the discussions on that Bill. Therefore, Sir, I do not think it will be denied by the right hon. Gentleman that it is necessary that this Session should be brought to an early termination that he has always held out that as his opinion, and that nothing has occurred during the progress of the Session which in any way justifies a departure from that determination. I think it was, therefore, with both disappointment and surprise that the House heard the statement of the right hon. Gentleman yesterday. What are his premises? The Session is to terminate by the end of August. Very well What is to be done in the interval of five and a-half weeks between now and the end of August? We are to deal with Supply, the Evicted Tenants Bill, which has not yet been read a second time, the Equalisation of Rates Bill which is in a similar position, the

  389
  Report on the Scotch Local Government Bill, and an indefinite discussion on the Miners' Eight Hours Bill, in addition to an uncertain number of measures which the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to think were unopposed, but with regard to some of which, at any rate, I think he will find himself mistaken. That is the programme. In the first place Sir, I complain that that is not a redemption of the promise made to the House by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to Supply. The right hon. Gentleman, on one occasion, when he obtained from the House facilities for the conduct of Government business, promised us that Supply should be fairly dealt with. I do not for a moment say that the right hon. Gentleman up to this time has not fulfilled that promise. But what is his present intention? Why, he has borrowed it from hon. Gentlemen from Ireland below the Gangway who, in the terms of a Motion which curiously enough appears on the Paper to-day in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Kerry, desire to ask the House to resolve that further proceedings in Committee of Supply, except in case of urgent need of a further Vote on Account, shall be postponed until four Bills have been disposed of by the House. Now, what is the condition of Supply? Fifty-six Votes have been passed; 114 still remain to be discussed. I do not wish to attach undue importance to the number; but the Votes not yet disposed of include the whole of Class II. of the Civil Service Estimates, which hon. Members from Ireland were exceedingly anxious to discuss when we were in Office. They include also the Education Votes and a very large proportion of the Votes for the Navy Let the House consider what is the nature of discussion on Supply in our present system. It is not merely a criticism of the financial proposals of the Government; it has got far beyond that. The effect of the action of one Government after another in making more and more claims upon the time of the House has been to deprive Members of the House of opportunities which the ordinary rules provided for calling attention to various matters and for criticizing the conduct of the Government in the administration of the affairs of the country. The result has been, that on every Vote
  390
  which relates to the Department of a responsible Member of the Government we must necessarily and properly have not merely financial criticism, but criticism of most of the administrative action of the Government. This is a privilege to which the House is entitled, which it is right to exercise, and which it is bound to exercise; and any action on the part of the Government which deprives us of the full extent of that privilege is action against the true interests of the country.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Hear, hear.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: The right hon. Gentleman cheers that sentiment; but what does the right hon. Gentleman do? He postpones until the four Bills have passed through this House any opportunity of carrying his own principles into effect. What are those Bills? Take the Evicted Tenants Bill. Whatever the merits of that Bill may be, I think it will be universally admitted it is a Bill on which there is a very wide difference of opinion between the two great forces that are always contending in Ireland; it is a Bill which, however well intentioned on the part of the Secretary for Ireland, as far as we can judge from the Debate on its introduction, does not absolutely satisfy any party among the Irish Representatives. It may be none the worse Bill for that, but the inevitable result will be that it will require lengthened discussion. Can one who remembers our Debates on Irish questions suppose that this Bill is likely to be passed through the Second Reading, the Committee, the Report stage, and the Third Reading in three or four days of the time of the House? Why, Sir, the idea is absurd. I now come to the Equalization of Rates Bill. It is a Bill earnestly desired by the hon. Member for Shoreditch and those who follow his lead in dealing with the municipal affairs of London. But it is also strongly opposed by some powerful forces in the Metropolis; and it contains principles which may be applicable to all the rest of the country, and will, therefore, demand very careful examination on the part of all interested in such matters, whether their interests are in London or in the country. This, therefore, is not a Bill to be passed in a couple of days With regard to the Local Government for Scotland Bill, the Government wasted days and days of the time

  391
  of the Session in carrying through that wonderful Scotch Committee. So far as I have seen, the result has been to place the Secretary for Scotland perpetually in hot water. He has had to give up, I am told, a very large portion of that Bill, and it will come down to the House maimed and shorn of proposals which the Government thought necessary; but it will also come down in the form to which it has been reduced by a Committee the majority of whom hold views on public affairs at variance with those held by the Opposition in this House, and it will therefore demand, even although it relates to Scotland only, fair and reasonable discussion on the Report stage, which, indeed, we were promised when the Committee was appointed. I come now to the Miners' Eight Hours Bill. I do not think anyone knows what is the position of that Bill; it is between heaven and earth if not between heaven and a worse place. I gather from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that his desire is to give the House in Committee an opportunity of expressing its judgment upon the Bill. What that meant he was asked by the hon. Members for Ince and Durham, who take opposite views on the merits of the Bill, and he gave them, I venture to say, no satisfactory answer at all. If it is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to do no more than give the House the opportunity of doing what it has done already on the Second Reading of the Bill, what is the good of wasting the time of the House in the month of August, as it has been wasted in previous months by Debates on the Welsh Church Bill and the Registration Bill, which everybody knew would never be proceeded with, on further Debates on a Bill introduced by a private Member? I do not know why Her Majesty's Government are granting this exceptional favor to the Miners' Eight Hours Bill, for it is not a Bill as to which they were pledged as a Government; it is no part of the Newcastle Programme; it has supporters and opponents on both sides of the House, and among its strongest opponents are some of the best of our laboring population. It has not arrived at as forward a stage in the proceedings of the House as another Bill, the Church Patronage Bill, to which Her Majesty's Government might much more usefully devote any spare time. I contend there is no justi-
  392
  fication for their taking this Miners Eight Hours Bill out of the ruck of private Bills and asking the House to consider it in the month of August with no real intention of passing it. So much for the four Bills I now come to Supply. How long does the House consider the discussion of the remaining 114 Votes might be expected to occupy, many of them being important Votes which the Government cannot deny the House ought to have the fullest opportunity of discussing? I have here a statement which shows the time that has been taken up by Supply during the last seven years. I will not suggest that we are entitled to expect that the same amount of time should be devoted to Supply this year which was given to it, mainly through the eloquence of the friends of the right hon. Gentleman, when we were in Office in 1889. In that year 45 days were occupied by Supply, and if you deduct the 18 days that have been given to it this Session, there is a margin of 27 days which at this rate would still be required for Supply. I will take the average of the last seven years, and will include in it the year 1892, in which Supply was accelerated by the approach of the General Election and lasted 20 days; and I find the average for the seven years to be 35 days. On that average we ought to give 17 more days to Supply this Session. If we were to commence on Monday next and take all Parliamentary time, Supply would take us up to the 19th of August. The suggestion is that we should rise by the end of August; and that means that the four Bills must be passed in a fortnight. Why, Sir, the proposition is absurd. Such a suggestion with regard to the conduct of our business I venture to say was never made by a responsible Minister. Coupling the date at which the right hon. Gentleman suggests our labors are to terminate with the work he has suggested to be done, he cannot believe in his own proposal. I would hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take warning from the laughter with which his suggestion was received, and which was by no means confined to the Opposition Benches. I hope the night's reflection has convinced him that he is attempting to put on the House work which cannot properly be performed in the time he desires to

  393
  devote to it. I hope he will realize that in what he is proposing to do he is not fulfilling his promise to give a fair amount of time to Supply. He is anxious, no doubt, to save something from the wreck of promises in the Queen's Speech; but he will defeat his own object if he attempts, towards the end of July, to force the House of Commons to do work which it cannot possibly perform.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir M. Hicks-Beach.)
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman began by speaking of disappointment and surprise, and then proceeded to say, in the most solemn manner, that measures had been put into the Queen's Speech which it was found at the end of the Session could not be gone on with. That is a matter of surprise to the right hon. Gentleman.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: I did not say that.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Well, the right hon. Gentleman spoke of those measures, and said they ought never to have been put into the Queen's Speech. That is the opinion of every Opposition in regard to the measures proposed by the responsible Government of the day. The right hon. Gentleman must excuse us for holding a different opinion on the subject of our measures from that which he entertains. For how many years was the promise unfulfilled by the late Government to follow up by a Parish Councils Bill their County Councils Bill?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Who stopped it?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Year after year that promised was renewed, and it never was fulfilled. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that I had held out the expectation that the Session should be concluded within a reasonable period. I did hold out that expectation, and the proposals I made are perfectly conformable with that statement. I will now proceed, if the House will allow me, to make good that assertion. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the question of Supply. He has put forth figures which, in my opinion, are absolutely unfounded, and which I will now proceed to refute. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I have always maintained that Supply
  394
  affords a proper opportunity for challenging the action of the Government. We have now given to regular Supply this Session 16 days In 1891, when we were in opposition, the days given to Supply were 26. Therefore, if 10 days more are given by us to regular Supply that will be equal to the time given in 1891 by the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues. That is the first refutation of the right hon. Gentleman's figures. In 1892 there were, owing to exceptional circumstances, 15 days only given to Supply. In 1893 there were 29 days given to Supply, the average of those three years being 24 days. [Opposition laughter.] What is there inaccurate in that?
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: I took the fat as well as the lean years.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: If the right hon. Gentleman objects to the year 1892, I will take the years 1891 and 1893, and then you will have 26 days in one year and 29 in the other, which will give an average of 27 ½ days for each year—and that is against the 16 days that have already been given this Session to Supply. There have already been given to the Army and Navy Estimates a larger number of days in Supply than have ever been given to them before. Therefore, I say that if 10 or 11 days—which may be considered as a Parliamentary fortnight—be further given to Supply we would be giving as much time as was given on the average during the last year of the late Government and the first year of the present Government.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: What nonsense this is!
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman says, "What nonsense this is." I hope he will be courteous. It does not, however, depend upon the opinion or upon the good manners of the right hon. Member for Bordesley what the facts are which I have given upon the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India. You say that the time given to the Estimates is not sufficient; but, if that be the case, take more time. That is a matter for the House of Commons itself to determine. The House can take what time it likes in reference to that subject. I admit that there remain Votes in Supply which ought to be fully discussed. But,

  395
  take for Supply as many days as you have taken before, and you will find that you will not exceed the time which I have allotted to it. The right hon. Gentleman objects to the Evicted Tenants Bill. He is going to oppose it, as is natural; and I do not complain of that. But for how many days are you going to oppose it?
  MR. CARSON: For a month.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: A month! I thank the hon. Gentleman for that word. He has let the cat out of the bag. I will thank the hon. Gentleman for an answer to another question. How long are you going to take over the Equalization of Rates Bill—another mouth? [Cries of "Two months!"] This appears like putting up to auction the public time of this country. As to the Local Government (Scotland) Bill the right hon. Gentleman comes from Bristol to tell us what the views of the Scotch Members are with reference to that Bill, but I would rather take the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition on the subject, who told us yesterday that it would take a day or two. I venture to say that that right hon. Gentleman knows as much about the matter as the right hon. Member for Bristol. Therefore, if you take a fortnight for Supply and give a day or two for the Scotch Local Government Bill the only question is how long you are going to take over the Evicted Tenants Bill and the Equalization of Rates Bill. That is really the whole question. It has been suggested in the newspapers that I said—if I said so I must have expressed myself very inaccurately—that it was not until we got through the non-controversial Bills that we should get to Supply. I never intended to say anything of the sort. If those Bills in the third category are non-controversial measures you may carry them pari passu with Supply. The right hon. Gentleman said that we ought not to have given time for the discussion of the Eight Hours Bill, because that is a Bill which the Government have not taken up as their own, and which they have not undertaken to pass. I would call his attention to a remarkable similar circumstance which took place in 1873. In 1873 my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, who was not at that time a Member of the Government, had
  396
  on the Paper a Bill for the restriction of the hours of labor in factories. It was a Nine Hours Bill, It was put down on July 30th by the then Government, and the right hon. Member for Midlothian gave it precedence. Mr. Collings asked whether it was a proper proceeding on the part of the Government to take a Bill of that kind out of its order, and put it down for discussion; and whether that proceeding was in accordance with the Resolution which had just been passed giving precedence to Government business. The Speaker replied that the proper construction of the Standing Order was that the Government had power to place, not only their own Orders, but the Orders of private Members according to their own pleasure. Mr. Hunt then asked whether the Bill referred to had been adopted by the Government, and Mr. Gladstone said it did not follow that because the Bill had been placed No. 4 on the Paper that therefore the Government were going to support it or make it a Government measure.—
  "In the case of a Motion of Want of Confidence in the Government"—
  continued the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian—
  "to which the Government gave precedence, could it be said that by that proceeding on their part they had adopted the Motion. That was simply absurd; and, accordingly, the Bill was put down by the Government in order that it might be discussed."
  Therefore, in taking the course we are taking in regard to the Miners' Eight Hours Bill, we are taking no unusual, no unprecedented, and no improper course at all, but one that has been thoroughly sanctioned by Parliamentary procedure. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion; but so am I entitled to mine, and I maintain that in the five or six weeks available before the end of August it is perfectly possible to give the average amount of time to Supply and to deal fairly with the measures to which I have referred. It is perfectly possible to give an average amount of time to Supply, and if the House of Commons intends to deal fairly with these measures there is plenty of time to deal with them consistently with giving that period to Supply. There is, in my opinion, a very important question involved in this. What

  397
  Gentlemen opposite want is that this Session shall close without our doing anything more than has already been done, and I think the sooner the House of Commons comes to an understanding upon this point the better. The point is whether it is to be regarded as a legitimate weapon of opposition to injure the Government by paralyzing the House of Commons. That is the real question we have to deal with, and I would venture to say that gentlemen opposite are as much interested in that question as gentlemen on this Bench. I suppose that in some dim and distant future gentlemen opposite cherish the hope that they may one day occupy these Benches. When they do they will be sorry if they give their sanction to the policy upon which the speech to which we have just listened is founded. The object of that speech, and the object of that policy obviously is to injure the Government by endeavoring to introduce such delays that the House of Commons shall do as little as possible, not in regard to measures of a highly contentious political character, but even with regard to questions which are wholly or partly controversial—their whole object being that it shall be possible when the Session is closed for the Opposition to go to the country and say that the House of Commons has done nothing. That is a question which is outside Parties, and which, in my opinion, ought to be above Parties. I think that the object of hon. Gentlemen should be exactly the opposite—that while we fight here as hard as we can on the great political issues which divide us, and always must divide both sides of the House—consistently with that, we should endeavor in this great Assembly to transact as much useful business for the advantage of the country as we can possibly do. Therefore, I say if consistently with those interests it is still possible for us to pass a number of really substantially non-controversial Bills we ought to do so for the advantage of the country and for the credit of the House of Commons. Now, as regards those Bills which we have really left to the determination of the Opposition in the House of Commons, I said the other day that I believe those Bills to be useful Bills. I believe it would be a great advantage to the country that these Bills should be passed. I understand that it is
  398
  argued by hon. Gentlemen opposite that these Bills are of so controversial a character that we cannot pass them without a considerable amount of discussion. Then, as I said yesterday, these Bills will not be proceeded with. On the other hand, I say that if the House of Commons is prepared to deal honestly and fairly with these Bills they can pass, leaving 10 days for Supply, making up the amount of time given in former years to Supply. I shall be surprised if the Leader of the Opposition gets up and says that the character of the opposition is such that it will take many days to pass these Bills—the Evicted Tenants Bill and the Equalisation of Rates Bill. I do not believe it will take many days. I believe a great many gentlemen who represent the Metropolis, and who sit behind the right hon. Gentleman, are supporters of the Equalisation of Rates Bill; therefore, it is only natural to suppose that two or three days will suffice for it. I am certain that unless there is some intention unduly to prolong the Debate the Local Government for Scotland Bill will also take a very short time—a day or two.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my statement with regard to that Bill. He has led the House to suppose that I suggested that all the subsequent stages of the Bill could be disposed of in a day or two. I said that not more than a day or two would be required on the Report stage.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, not as a Scotch Member, but as a Scotchman, whether, if it had been two or three days under discussion on Report, there is a single Scotch Member who would reject the Bill on the Third Reading? The right hon. Gentleman may have changed his opinion since yesterday, but I venture to say that the whole of the Scotch Members desire for the sake of their country that this Bill should pass, and pass without delay. All depends upon whether you intend and whether you will succeed in spending a month—which is the period the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite claimed—on the Evicted Tenants Bill. In my opinion it would be a most improper and unjustifiable proceeding to spend a whole month of Parliamentary time in that way. That

  399
  the Bill should be fully and adequately discussed I admit; but to spend a month on it would be indefensible, and I believe the majority of the House of Commons and the great majority of the country would disapprove of any such proceeding. That, of course, remains to be seen. So far as the Government are concerned, we think we have made no unreasonable demands upon the House of Commons, and it will be for the House of Commons to say hereafter whether they will support the Government in these demands. I will only repeat that, from what consideration I have been able to give to the matter, I think that with a fair and reasonable allowance of time for each of these measures and to Supply we may fairly hope and expect that the Prorogation will take place in the month of August.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know how many more speeches the Chancellor of the Exchequer means to make, but I observe they proceed on the crescendo scale, and that each successive one is more than the last in the nature of an appeal to the electorate. The right hon. Gentleman began to-day in an extremely moderate fashion. It is true he protested against the taunts addressed to him and the Government that they have introduced more Bills in the Queen's Speech than they have been able to carry, and he said that had been the case with previous Governments; but that is not the gist of the accusation which has been brought against the Government. What we complain of is not they that have introduced more Bills in number than they were likely to be able to carry, but that they introduced such Bills that they could not have believed there was the slightest chance that they could carry. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it is an extraordinary doctrine that anyone should endeavour to injure the Government by preventing them doing anything in the House of Commons. No such doctrine has been advanced. I entirely repudiate any such doctrine. It has never been advanced by any Member of the Opposition. It is an equally reprehensible doctrine that the Government should go on piling Bill after Bill into a programme merely for the purpose of diverting and deceiving public opinion. Let us take the matter from the reason-
  400
  able standpoint of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He adheres to his previous statement that there is plenty of time between now and the end of August for the House of Commons to accomplish the work he has laid before it. How much time have we? We have 32 days of Government time up to the 31st of August, including to-day, and in those 32 days we have to accomplish the list of work the right hon. Gentleman has put before us. The Chancellor of the Exchequer refuses to allow that Supply should take more time than in average years. Let me point out that there is good reason why Supply should take longer time this year than in other years. The reason is that the Government took the whole time of the House earlier this year than they ever did before, and the only opportunity left to us to question the administration and policy of the Government on a heap of miscellaneous questions is on Supply. That is the only opportunity private Members have. This year private Members have been deprived of almost every other opportunity of raising questions of importance. Accordingly it would be perfectly reasonably for us to contend that the time to be taken for discussions in Supply should be more liberally allotted to us than it has ever been before. But I am going to take the Chancellor of the Exchequer where I can, on his own argument. He is gracious enough to say that we may have 11 days, which is the average of the last, three years, including the year of the General Election.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: No, if you included that, there would only be eight days.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am much obliged. Then I suppose we may take it that there are 12 days for Supply. Well, 12 days from 32 leaves 20 days. Then there is the Indian Budget. Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us what time should be given this year to the discussion of the finances of India? Will he give us less than two days? Very well, then, there are two days necessary for the Indian Budget, and two more days for the Vote on Account and the Report. That makes four days, leaving 16. Now, there are no less than nine Bills which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has called non-controversial measures. I admit that they are non-

  401
  controversial measures, although they include such important questions as the attendance at elementary schools, building societies, railway and canal traffic, and conciliation in labour disputes. Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us that it is the duty of the House to pass Bills of this kind without some reasonable chance of discussion? All these Bills are in their infancy and will have to be passed through their three or four stages. I will undertake to say that with these nine Bills there are no less than 20 stages to be gone through.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Are you going to oppose them all?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That is not the point. So far as I am concerned, I am certainly not going to oppose any one of these Bills, because, so far as the principle of these Bills is concerned, I approve of them. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer was justified in saying that they were what are ordinarily called non-controversial Bills; but does he mean to tell the Labour Party in this House, for instance, that, because these are non-controversial Bills, a Bill so important as one to establish Boards of Conciliation is to pass through the House after 10 minutes' discussion, because, forsooth, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is bound by a contract with the Irish Members to give an indefinite time to the Evicted Tenants Bill? No, Sir; this question is not disposed of by an interruption of the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking me whether I am going to oppose these Bills. I am not going to oppose them, but I claim that when we have to deal with nine Bills having 20 stages we cannot possibly get through them without allowing—what will the most moderate man in the House say is the least time that can be properly given to these nine Bills?—I take it five days for the whole nine Bills, four or five of which are of the very utmost importance, although they are non-controversial. Taking, therefore, five days from the 16, that gives me 11 days. Then there is the Local Government for Scotland Bill, for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gives me three days.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: No, no.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was not reasonable to ask for more than one or two upon a Bill which has been hotly contested in the Grand Committee, and
  402
  which has occupied 14 sittings of the Committee. Is it reasonable to say that a Bill of this kind is likely to pass the Report and Third Reading stages in less than three days?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Oh.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Well, I want to carry the Chancellor of the Exchequer with me. I will say two days if he likes, and that will leave me with only a balance of nine days. Then how much is to be given to the Equalisation of Rates Bill, which has not even passed its Second Reading? It has four stages to go through, and, although it is not in one sense a Bill which necessarily divides us according to Party lines, it is a Bill for all that which proposes to alter the whole finance of London and to transfer property in the shape of rates from 28 districts to 42 districts. Is it possible that the 28 districts whose property is going to be taken away and given to the 42 districts will not have something to say on the subject? I think I should be very moderate indeed if I put the whole four stages down as likely to occupy six days. [Cries of "Oh!"] Then how much will the Chancellor of the Exchequer give me? Will he say four days?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: That depends upon how much support is given by the Opposition.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: What a perfectly irrelevant interruption from a usually relevant man. I am not going to take any part in the discussion myself. It does not especially interest me. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks four days too much—I wish to come to an agreement with him—I will reduce it to three days. The result of that will be that we shall have only six days left in which we shall have to deal with the Evicted Tenants Bill and the Eight Hours Bill. So far as the Eight Hours Bill is concerned—I am sorry I do not see the Member for Durham in his place—the Chancellor of the Exchequer has entirely misapprehended our position. I, for one, do not complain of the Government adopting or not adopting this measure. All we ask is to what extent are they going to give it their patronage, and to what extent have they agreed to give facilities for the Bill? We want to know whether these facilities are to extend to the whole of the Committee

  403
  stage, and we have been totally unable to extract a definite answer from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Supposing it is not to extend to the whole of the Committee stage, then this House is going to be asked to stultify itself by wasting precious time at the end of August in discussing a Bill which the Government themselves do not mean to proceed with. We are expected, for the pleasure of enabling the Government to satisfy some mysterious and secret pledges which they have given to certain Members of the Labour Party, to discuss a Bill which, under the circumstances, is a mere make-believe. If, on the other hand, the Government mean to give facilities for the full discussion of this Bill, then I say, Sir, it is perfectly absurd to suppose that a Bill of that kind, affecting as it does one of the largest industries in the country, and deeply affecting it, and upon which there is a division of opinion extending to both sides of the House, can fully and fairly be discussed in less than the whole of the remaining time of the Session, and that will leave absolutely no time at all for the Evicted Tenants Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it would be monstrous if we took a month for the Evicted Tenants Bill. But the Evicted Tenants Bill is a new Land Bill for Ireland, introducing into that much distressed country—for I cannot say how many number of times—another and new system of legislation, and with it new principles of legislation, interfering with, and necessarily upsetting existing legislation, and destroying the principle upon which the present Land Purchase Acts are based. Do not let us diminish the importance of the measure. I do not know whether 20 days is a fair time to take for it, or whether it could be discussed in less time; but, at all events, it is perfectly evident that a matter raising such very important questions will require a very large amount of time. What I ask the House to see is that the Government have not left it any time at all; or, to put it another way, if they give the time to the Evicted Tenants Bill that it will require, then undoubtedly those other Bills must be crushed out of existence. Unless, indeed, we are to adopt another theory which seems to find favour, I do not say with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but with the organs of the Government,
  404
  and that is that this House is to be penalised, and that, like an able-bodied prisoner who, with a certain task set him, is not allowed to go to rest until he has accomplished his stint of work, we are to be kept at work until we have accomplished the task set the House by the Government. I believe there are some Members who would support that view. It is a view which is certainly extremely convenient for the present Government and for all who expect to be in future Governments. This is to make a Government, which may be only representative of a very small majority in this House—a majority of one is as good as a majority of 20 for all practicable purposes—absolutely masters not only of the time of the House, but of the business of the House. And a Government, however unreasonable it may be, may fix the labours of the House of Commons at the beginning of a Session and keep it sitting until it has finished all its work. If hon. Members support that view, then under the circumstances the only complaint I have to make of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is as to his extreme moderation. Why, under the circumstances, does he withdraw the Welsh Disestablishment Bill? There is plenty of time if you are to sit through August, and if you think you can bully the Opposition into passing these measures before you prorogue why not include the Local Veto Bill? I see the hon. Member for Carlisle in his place, and I should like to call his attention to this fact—that the Local Veto Bill is everywhere popular. It is not merely the hon. Baronet and his friends on this side of the House who wish to see it passed, but the Opposition and the Liberal Unionists are burning to see it passed. If my hon. Friend will get up a Petition to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to introduce it I believe nine-tenths of the House will sign it. What sire the grounds upon which we are asked to sit until we have accomplished the work provided for us? Have we injured the Government by undue or deliberate obstruction? If so, why does not the Chancellor of the Exchequer say so? As Leader of the House, as promoter of the Budget Bill, he was more interested than anyone in the conduct of the Bill. Why does he not call attention to illegitimate obstruction? I

  405
  will state the reason for the information of the gentlemen who cheered just now, not one of whom, I venture to say, attended the Budget Debates. The reason is that, unless the Government had themselves accepted or proposed something like 200 Amendments to this Bill—for they recognise that the discussion was useful and advantageous, and has led to the improvement of the Bill—it would have been a worse Bill even than it is now, and the country would have suffered but for this legitimate discussion. Under these circumstances it is absurd to accuse us of obstruction. There is a general answer to that which I would quote from the words of the right hon. Member for Midlothian. Since I have been in the House of Commons, I admit that every Government in turn has accused the Opposition of obstruction. Opposition to the Government always appears like obstruction, and I think great credit is due to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for not having adopted that hackneyed cry. What did the right hon. Member for Midlothian say in 1890 when a similar accusation was made against the then Opposition which he was leading. He said—
  "Of course, it is just as easy for us to go about the country and say this charge of obstruction is an impudent imposture;"
  —this is for the gentlemen who cheered just now—
  "there is no foundation for it at all. It is the miserable device of men who resort to it because every rag of every other pretext has been stripped from their backs, and, in the absence of any decent clothing in which to present themselves to the world, they have concocted and weaved together this miserable cloak of obstruction."
  I venture to say that a misapprehension exists in the country to some extent as to what the Government is entitled to expect from the House of Commons during a single Session. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that it is the object of the Opposition to go to the country and to say that the Government have only carried one Bill. If that were the only accusation we had to make against the Government, it would be a poor thing upon which to rest our claim to the support of the country. In the first place, let us consider what Bill it is that the Government will have carried. The Bill of the Government was really three distinct Bills. It was an ordinary
  406
  Budget Bill in the first place; it was a Bill for the equalisation of the duties upon personal and real property in the second place; and it was a Bill, introducing for the first time the great principle of graduation in our national and Imperial finance. To all intents and purposes, therefore, there were three equally independent and important principles, every one of which required a very considerable amount of discussion, and they might very well have formed the basis of three great Bills. The Government, in carrying them under cover of one Bill, which they called a Finance Bill, have practically carried three Bills through the House of Commons. My second point is this: that the actual Session only began on March 12, and it has been a short Session; but if you take the real Session you will find that it has included the Employers' Liability Bill and the Parish Councils Bill, which were passed at all events through the House of Commons. Is that a good record for the House of Commons to make in a single Session to carry three such Bills as the Budget Bill, the Employers' Liability Bill, and the Parish Councils Bill? I do not think in the history of our legislation for the last 20 years you can find any Parliament in which more has been done—that is, as to the importance of the Bills which have been passed. It is a matter of fact. Let us take the time when there was no obstruction at all—at least when obstruction was not heard of, at all events, in its present developed form. Of course, obstruction, as we know it, was developed and perfected by Mr. Parnell and the group of Members who followed his leadership. Until the advent of Mr. Parnell as a great political force obstruction was, comparatively speaking, unknown. I take, therefore, the time before Mr. Parnell introduced this novel weapon of political warfare. In 1869 I find two great Bills were passed in the Session—the Irish Church Bill and the Endowed Schools Bill. Next year there were the Land Act and the Education Act; next year Army Purchase and University Tests; next year the Ballot Act and the Licensing Act; and in 1873 there was only one Bill, the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. Now, I say again, in these circumstances, this Session of Parliament has done more legislative

  407
  work as far as I know, or at least has done as much legislative work, as any Parliament which has sat for 20 years. Hon. Members cheer that statement. I hope that they will not go back from that cheer. If that is so, then with what face do you accuse us of obstruction? With what face do you pretend to have a right to keep us here until October, when you admit that you have done as important work as may fairly be expected from any Parliamentary Session? You may say that this Parliament has done as much as was accomplished through all the eventful years of 1869 to 1874. It is perfectly monstrous to contend in such circumstances that we should be forced to sit longer in order to do more work. The last point to which I wish to call attention is this. If it be agreed that we are to do more work, at least I think the House has a right to express an opinion as to the work it should be called upon to do. Allowing that we have 32 days at our disposal, surely it is worth while to consider whether the best use is going to be made of that time. I want to ask the House what principle has presided over the selection of the measures which we are now called upon to consider? I think we shall find a clear and definite principle running through this selection. It is entirely devised to satisfy, in the first place, the largest number of votes, and, in the second place, the greatest amount of importunity. I think I shall show that. Everyone knows that the Liberal Party is divided into sections. The most important section is the Irish section, with 70 votes, and I am sure I shall not be considered offensive if I say that they are also the most importunate section. Accordingly, they come off best. They are to have all the time required to pass all the stages of an important Bill like the Evicted Tenants Bill. But, not only that, we have heard through the usual channels of information that they are also to have the first place next Session for another Irish Bill pari passu with the Welsh Members. That is the position of the Irish Members. Then come the Welsh Members with 30 votes; and I judge that as they have only half as many votes as the Irish, they are only half as importunate. Accordingly, all they can get is the promise for first place next Session, when they are to run in double harness with the Irish Members;
  408
  and I fancy they are easily satisfied. I think I know which of that team will do the most of the work. Then we come to the London Members who support the Government. They number about 20, and they are entitled to a smaller Bill than either the Welsh or the Irish. Accordingly, they are let off with the Equalisation of Rates Bill, which is put in the third place. Then there are the Labour Members, who have the dubious promise of doubtful, not well-explained and defined, facilities for the Eight Hours Bill of which a majority of them are in favour. Then I come to another class, in which I take a considerable amount of interest, though they represent a small section in this House—the crofter interest. Inasmuch as they have only two Members, they are told that they may have their Bill if it is entirely unopposed. Now I come back to my hon. Friend the Member for Cockermouth. What is the position of the great Temperance Party? I do not dare to give any guess as to the number of that Party. I have said that those who favour the introduction of the Bill will be found to constitute a large portion of the House, but the number of the actual followers of my hon. Friend I would not venture to indicate. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: Russell.] I have no doubt there are many equally influential Members who follow my hon. Friend; but I ask them to consider what they have got, and I couple that with the question, "What did they expect to get?" Nothing? Oh, no. My hon. Friend does himself an injustice. Here is what my hon. Friend said on July 8, 1893, now more than 12 months ago. No doubt he was in presence of a certain uneasiness in a section of the Party, and in order to raise their spirits and encourage them in the good work, he wrote a letter to "Dear Mr. White," the Secretary, I believe, of the United Kingdom Alliance—
  "I do not wonder," wrote my hon. Friend, "at your being a little anxious when you see so many political prophets forecasting the course of Public Business and studiously avoiding any mention of the Government's Liquor Traffic (Control) Bill; but I do not think you need be much troubled on that account. It is evident now that after the Irish Bill has been got out of the House of Commons we shall have an Autumn Session to forward the measures promised in the Queen's Speech. Surely you need not be under the apprehension that the Liquor Traffic (Control) Bill will be suddenly dropped out of the list."

  409
  Then my hon. Friend went on to give his reasons to these doubting friends. He said—
  "Remember also how gallantly Sir William Harcourt, who takes charge of the Bill, has nailed his colours to the mast. There is not the slightest evidence that the Government have any disposition to play fast and loose with the Bill, but they could not do so even if they had such a disposition. Lord Rosebery has declared that the temperance men are the backbone of the Liberal Party. Is it possible to suppose that the Government, having finally estranged the great drink monopoly by introducing the Bill, will straightway proceed to alienate the Temperance Party by withdrawing it? It is difficult enough for a Government to get on nowadays when supported by one Party, but when it is supported by neither Party it is easy to see what will become of it. … Our friends need have no fear. Our position is growing stronger every day."
  The Autumn Session came and passed, and the Liquor Traffic (Control) Bill did not come with it; and now, 12 months after that letter was written, this Bill is actually withdrawn. My hon. Friend prophesied on grounds, no doubt, which justified prediction at the time. He declared that the Bill would not be withdrawn, and indicated if it were that the Temperance Party, who are the backbone of the Liberal Party, would withdraw their support from the Government. I have no doubt my hon. Friend meant what he said at the time, and I wait to hear what he means now. In any case I have no doubt the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have rightly gauged his threats, and they have concluded that, on the whole, of all the sections of the House to whom they are obliged to look, the temperance section is the one which they can neglect with the most absolute safety. I can only congratulate the Government on the success of their strategy and on the docility of their followers. I believe Sir Robert Walpole said that every man had his price, and that the height of statesmanship was to know how to buy men cheap. If Sir Robert Walpole were alive now he would, I think, be lost in admiration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who buys his Party so cheaply that they take his promissory notes as if they had some real and substantial value.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, he was surprised that no one had risen to answer the last speech—or, rather, he was not surprised, for the
  410
  simple reason that the speech was un-answerable. It proved that the Session would be extended far beyond the end of August, or else that it would be necessary to have a fresh slaughter of the innocents. As to the Eight Hours (Miners) Bill, the right hon. Gentleman said that in giving facilities to this measure he was taking no unusual or unprecedented course. It was possible that the course was not entirely unprecedented, though the right hon. Gentleman had to go back 20 years for a precedent, but it was very unusual. He was not aware of the circumstances which accompanied the occurrence to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: There are a good many other precedents.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, the right hon. Gentleman only quoted one, and he must repeat that even if the Government's action was not unprecedented, it was very unusual. The Bill was not a Government measure, nor was it supported by all the Members of the Government. It was of a highly controversial character, and had a considerable number of opponents on both sides of the House. Yet it was selected for discussion at the expense of other Bills which were originally included in the Government Programme. The Government would not state what were the facilities which they promised; and it might be assumed, therefore, that a certain number of days were to be given to the Committee stage, and that if the Bill were not through then it would be dropped and no further facilities would be allowed for it. What were the Chancellor of the Exchequer's reasons for this extraordinary action? He was unfortunately unable to be present when the right hon. Gentleman made his statement on the previous day, but he had since carefully read the speech and had discovered two reasons for the attitude taken up by the Leader of the House. He first said that the Bill was of great importance, and that the House of Commons ought to have an opportunity of pronouncing an opinion upon it; and, secondly, that the Government having taken the whole time of the House, and the Bill having a favourable position, the Government were bound to give

  411
  facilities for the House to prononnce an opinion on it. These reasons were very unsatisfactory. It might be said that the Government had given a pledge to the Representatives of the miners who were in favour of the Bill. But why was that pledge given? He had sought for the reason, and in the course of his investigation he remembered that the Prime Minister in platform speeches had made references to the Bill which must have influenced the Government. At Edinburgh, on March 17, the Prime Minister said that the Bill would have the great mass of the Government support, and would be given a day and every facility consistent with the work of the Session. They would spare no efforts, as individual Ministers, to pass it into law. But the noble Lord went further, and later, at St. James's Hall, said that the Government had promised Government support of the Bill, and that was a recognition of the Government's viewing this new force as one on which it must rest for support. He would point out the difference of tone between these utterances of the Prime Minister and the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Lord Rosebery said that the Government would give the measure their cordial support and would try to pass it through Parliament. The Chancellor of the Exchequer simply stated that the subject was important, and that the promoters had been successful in the ballot. Something must have happened in the interval; and he would suggest that he was not far from the mark when he said that the Government had found that there was much more opposition to the measure on their own side of the House than they had supposed. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Newcastle had reminded the Government that his views were not the same as the Prime Minister's. He himself protested against the course which had been adopted; and he hoped that if this Motion were pressed to a Division those on the other side of the House who were opposed to the Bill would join in protesting against exhausting the time and energies of the House for these exceptional facilities, which ought never to have been given.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that practically the hon. Member complained of the Government's taking
  412
  the liberty to arrange their business as they thought best, and without consulting him. The real answer to the speeches of the right hon. Members for Bristol and Birmingham was this: The Chancellor of the Exchequer had submitted a modest programme for the end of the Session. The complaint of hon. Gentlemen was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was wrong in supposing that the programme could be carried out by the end of August. If it could not, what would happen? What ought to happen? That hon. Gentlemen ought to sit on into September until the programme was carried through. He was really an impartial "bottle-holder" in the matter; for, while he greatly admired the stalwart spirit of Ministers and of the Members round them, the state of his health would deprive him of the pleasure of taking part in their heroic determination to carry this programme. He was not, therefore, concerned, unless, as the Leader of the Opposition had suggested, the House went on sitting till November, when he had no doubt that the state of his health would permit him to come back. There was another point to which he wished to call attention. His complaint was that the programme was not larger. There was one subject on which he had hoped to hear some statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They had heard a good deal about the Newcastle Programme. The House was aware that the Government Party had the advantage of what might be called a Liberal Parliament. Delegates from all the Liberal Associations throughout the country met occasionally and laid down what they thought ought to be the programme of the Liberal Party. That they did at Newcastle before the last Election, and their programme had been accepted by the leaders of the Party. Since then there had been another meeting of this Liberal Parliament at Leeds, and it passed a resolution declaring that it was desirable and necessary that any Bill passed through the House of Commons should become law during the same Session. The meeting called upon the Leaders of the Liberal Party to give effect to that view in the present Parlia-

  413
  ment. Of course, one could quite understand that after the fatigues and labours of the Session Ministers were not prepared to go into the question exhaustively during the present Session; still they ought to have some understanding with Ministers that they on their part accepted in its entirety the resolution of the Leeds Conference, and that they would table a Bill which they should propose to carry, if not in this, at all events in the ensuing, Session. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had already projected his mind into the next Session. He had told them what Bills were to be brought in; would he add the information whether the Government Bills would include one altering the present methods of Parliamentary procedure? Speaking not only for himself, but for a large number of Radicals in the country, there would be very great dissatisfaction if something was not done in this matter very soon. If there was not an announcement at the commencement of next Session that the Government accepted the resolution of the Leeds Conference as the irreducible minimum, he was afraid it would be necessary for those who agreed with him to take active measures, either by Resolution or by Amendments, in order to ask the Government to express their views and submit the question to the House upon these matters.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURNsaid, he should like to say a word with regard to the neglect of the House of Indian affairs. The people of India were almost in despair at the habitual disregard of their grievances. It was the duty of the Government to hold the balance as between competing claims and interests, and to see that fair play was given to those who had no Representatives in this House and no votes to give to the Government.
  SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, he was very much surprised at the selection which the Government had made of Bills which they had determined to press forward. The Evicted Tenants Bill referred to but a comparatively small number of persons. The Equalisation of Rates Bill, again, dealt
  414
  with a very complicated and difficult question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it would be supported by the majority of London Members. That might be so, for it transferred large sums from some 28 districts to 40 others. It was reasonable to suppose that it would be supported by the representatives of most of the 40, though it had by no means their unanimous support, because some of them felt that, though they might gain for the moment, still it would offer such inducement to extravagance that they would suffer in the long run. Moreover, if the principle was adopted for London it must be extended to the rest of the country. Then the Government were going to give facilities to the Eight Hours Bill, and he should like to make an appeal on behalf of the Shops Early Closing Bill. The Shops Bill relieved not men only, but would be a precious boon to a great number of women and young persons who had no votes, and were on that very account especially entitled to the consideration of the House. Secondly, it dealt not with eight hours, but with persons working 12 and even 14 hours; and, thirdly, it rested on a unanimous Resolution of the House, supported by Her Majesty's Government. He greatly regretted that they had taken no steps to promote a measure which was not controversial, and the importance, he might say the necessity, of which they had themselves recognised.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, the Government was already responsible for a large expenditure of the time of the House, and had in fact practically taken the whole time of the Session at a period early beyond all precedent. That being so, they ought to have been a little modest in their demands for the remainder of the Session, and the Bills they proposed to press forward. As a London Member he took a deep interest in the Equalisation of Rates Bill, and he and those who thought with him on this question, although they were in favour of a re-arrangement of local taxation under which the poor should pay less and the rich pay more, must necessarily occupy some of the time of the House in pointing out that under the provisions of this Bill in some cases the poor would have to

  415
  pay more while the rich would obtain a benefit which they had no desire to have conferred upon them. It must be remembered that this measure would be the foundation upon which future proposals for effecting enormous changes in relation to local taxation would be based, and therefore it was only right that it should receive adequate discussion before it became law. He had done all in his power to secure the passing of the Building Societies Bill, the progress of which was stopped by one of the supporters of the Government. That would be a most useful measure, because it was hoped that it would put an end to any cases of fraud and irregularities that might exist in some of these societies. He did not think that the Government had acted very fairly by the House in picking out from among the numerous private Members' Bills the Eight Hours Bill for advancement simply because it was promoted by one of their own supporters. The Evicted Tenants Bill was of a most revolutionary character, and if it were not for political considerations no human being on either side of the House would support it. That Bill would have to be resisted to the utmost, and the time that would be occupied in discussing it must necessarily be considerable. In addition to the time that would be required for the discussion of the measure to which he had referred, a considerable further portion of the time of the House would have to be occupied in bringing forward questions arising on Supply. The programme of the Government, therefore, was a sham one, and had merely been brought forward by the Government with the hope of keeping the various sections of their supporters in good humour. In his opinion, all that the Government should demand of the House was that they should pass the necessary Votes in Supply, and perhaps one or two non-contentious Bills, and then allow them to separate for their well-earned holiday.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There appears to be a general agreement between the two sides of the House that the end of August probably represents the limit of Parliamentary endurance; and not a single word, I was glad to notice, fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to contradict the opinion, of which
  416
  he himself was the exponent earlier in the year, that if this House is to continue adequately to discharge its functions, if the health of its Members is to be preserved, if the whole machinery of legislation is not to break down by being overstrained, it is absolutely necessary that the holidays this year should not be deferred to some extravagantly late period. We do not differ on that point. But we do differ with regard to the possibility of carrying out that programme which, with conscious or unconscious humour, the Chancellor of the Exchequer presented to us yesterday, for the purpose, as he told us, of bringing the Session rapidly to a close. I do not think, Sir, such a statement ever was so prefaced in the annals of Parliament. When I heard the welcome words of the right hon. Gentleman, I, for my part, thought that some modest proposals of legislation were going to drop from his lips, and that he was going to tell us that, after one Bill, or at most two Bills, of no very contentious character had been disposed of, the House might then deal with the great questions raised by Supply, and might then amicably prorogue in the third week in August, or perhaps as late as the fourth week in that month. But when the Chancellor of the Exchequer began to develop his programme there was not a man on either side of the House who did not know in his heart that the calculations as regards time with which that plan was accompanied were absolutely ludicrous and absolutely impossible, and therefore were likely to raise fallacious hopes in the minds of his hearers, if they raised any emotions at all except those of ridicule. We are accustomed to such calculations at the beginning of a Session. Every Government that I have ever heard of always begins the Session by promising their followers and the country a programme in the Queen's Speech which persons of a less sanguine temperament than Governments are at that period of the year would know could never be really carried out. But we forgive that. We have all done it. But what we do complain of is that the youthful folly which is excusable in February should make its appearance on the 18th of July. By that time the spirit of sober seriousness should come over a Government; they should have sown their wild oats; they should know what it is that

  417
  life can give and what life cannot give; and really, at a period when the Session is approaching the natural term of its existence, to indulge in these illusory hopes and vain dreams of future glory is as foolish as it is for a septuagenarian to indulge in visions which we all admire in youths of 18 or men of 25. I do not know that there is anything that I can add that will increase the force of that pregnant almanac or forecast of our time which was given to the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham. He went through the promises of the Government item by item. He cut down to the narrowest limits the amount of time which would be taken by each of those items in turn; and he showed, I think, to demonstration—at all events, no refutation has been attempted—that if all the other things promised by the Government were performed it was absolutely impossible to leave a single hour to be given to the Evicted Tenants Bill, the consideration of which we are about to commence. How is it that the Government have been led to such a very different conclusion? I think I can point out how it is that the right hon. Gentleman has made his false calculation. The right hon. Gentleman made a most extraordinary calculation which will not stand a moment's examination. In the first place, it cut out all discussion of Supplementary Estimates. Why? What is it that takes time in the discussions of Supply? It is the discussion of the action of the Government, and questions can be raised just as well upon the Supplementary Estimates as upon the main Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman, however, made a more important and a more curious error when, like other statisticians, he insisted on taking as the basis of his calculation the figures that happened to suit him, and leaving absolutely out of account all the figures that did not happen to suit him. He took the years 1891 and 1893. Why did he not take 1890, or 1889, or 1888, or 1887? When you are dealing with averages it is always well not to take too small a basis on which to build your superstructure. If the right hon. Gentleman had taken the average of all the years during which he led the Opposition he would have found the figures as to the time given to Supply very different from those which
  418
  he produced. The figure which the right hon. Gentleman gave was 27½ days, and the average number of days occupied with Supply in the years to which I have referred was 38. The right hon. Gentleman should have included the supplementary Estimates in his calculations, but I observed that in the years he gave the difference between Supplementary and other Estimates was four or five days. The total number of days in 1893, which was an exceptional year, was, including the Supplementary Estimates, 34.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: No, 38; and included nine supplementary days.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My figures are carefully made, and, though I have not the figures excluding the Supplementary Estimates, I make the average number of days occupied, excluding 1892, to be 38. If that average is going to be adopted by the House, then the calculations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are ludicrously off the mark. The second mistake made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is with regard to non-contentious business. He assumed not only throughout his speech, but throughout the supplementary interruptions with which he greeted the right hon. Member for West Birmigham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) that a non-contentious Bill was a Bill that was not debated. That is not the definition of a non-contentious Bill. A non-contentious Bill is a Bill on which Parties are not keenly divided, upon which there is no desire to run counter to the general principle of the measure; but it does not mean, and never has meant in our Parliamentary vocabulary, a measure which do not require amendment and discussion and full consideration by the House in its various stages. And if you refuse to give to so-called non-contentious Bills the amount of discussion they require, the result will be that your legislation will be full of blunders which will have to be corrected, and you will throw upon the House of Lords work which you ought to have undertaken, but which, no doubt, they are quite as capable of performing as you are, if you choose deliberately to divest yourselves of the duties with which your constituents have entrusted you. The third blunder of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which affects the results of his calculation, relates to the Evicted Tenants Bill. It

  419
  would be entirely out of place here to discuss that measure even in the most cursory manner; but to suppose that the House is not going to debate a measure like that, which, though it is not a long measure, bristles in every clause with new principles and the new application of old principles, and with new machinery is surely absolutely ludicrous. What constitutes fair discussion? I will give the right hon. Gentleman a measure of fair discussion; I will give him a standard by which fair discussion may be approximately estimated. The Government of which he is a Member, in their wisdom, decided to establish a Scotch Grand Committee. That Committee was deliberately created by them as an instrument for the rapid discussion of the measures entrusted to it. One measure, and only one measure, was entrusted to that Committee. It was a measure non-controversial in its general character, and a measure upon which no Division had been taken on the Second Reading. It was a measure constructed upon similar lines to the English Bill, which had been most thoroughly threshed out in the House within the last six or eight months. It was entrusted to a Committee composed of the most business-like section of the House, countrymen of my own, who notoriously measure their words, and press into the briefest possible compass what they feel it incumbent upon them to say. It will be admitted, I think, that if ever there was an instrument calculated rapidly to go through the details of a Bill the Scotch Grand Committee was that instrument. And what has been the result? It has been occupied 14 days over the Bill, and the Government who are in charge of the measure find at the end that they could not carry the Bill in its entirety without unduly prolonging the labours of the Committee. They have therefore thrown over one part of their scheme, the discussion upon which is not finished yet. If that is what is done in a Committee, not of the whole House, but of 60 or 70 Members—about a tenth part of the size of the whole House—on a measure which is uncontroversial and is strictly upon the lines of legislation already passed in the House, what are we to expect of a Bill which has to be discussed in a House of 670 gentlemen, which is entirely novel in all its proposals and in all its policy, which
  420
  is so far from being uncontroversial that it probably will raise more bitter controversies than any legislation introduced into this House since the Crimes Act was discussed and passed, and the discussion of which is not to be carried on by Scotchmen, but is to be carried on by Irishmen? If this uncontroversial Scotch Bill took 14 days in the Grand Committee for one of its stages, how long is the same stage going to take in this House, when the Bill is discussed by 670 gentlemen, or, rather, by all who are left alive, during the next three or four weeks? It is really absurd for any Government to be so wilfully, or, at all events, so fatuously blind as to suppose that a measure of this kind, though it only consists of eight clauses, is going to get through this House without an expenditure of Parliamentary time, Parliamentary labour, and Parliamentary discussion, which of itself would be sufficient absolutely to upset the calculations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is another Bill, any mention of which was conspicuously absent from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He did allude in a passing phrase or two to the Mines Eight Hours Bill, but he did not give us any estimate of the amount of time he was prepared to give to the discussion of that measure or the number of stages that measure was to be allowed to pass through under the protection of the Government. I quite agree that the Eight Hours Bill is a most important question, and it may or may not be right to give time for that Bill; but what is not right is that the Government should ask this weary and jaded House, after 18 months of almost continuous work, to sit down and deal in Committee with this Bill for an indefinite period and without any pledge from the Government or any decided hope being held out either to us or to the miners, or to any section of the community, that the labour so bestowed will not be absolutely thrown away. The phrase used by the right hon. Gentleman in talking of the Eight Hours Bill was that he desired to have the judgment of the House upon it. What kind of judgment is this House capable of giving to any Bill at the end of August, when August will be the 19th month in succession since we began our labours? Everybody knows what a state the House will be in at that time. There will be

  421
  200 pairs or more. The House will be reduced—I will not say to the dregs.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: To the two Front Benches.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There will be a survival of the most vigorous constitutions. It will be left to those who are physically strongest—to the smallest fraction of the House. Hon. Gentlemen sometimes argue as if the House, when there are 200 pairs, was as well qualified to represent the country as when all the Members are present. That is not the case. No doubt the House equally well reflects the balance of Parties, but it does not and cannot represent public opinion in the same way as if there were a full attendance. That argument has less weight when you are dealing with business of so Party a character that practically all the Members of one Party are found in one Lobby and all the Members of the other Party in the other Lobby. But when you are dealing with a Bill like the Eight Hours Bill, where Party discipline is not exercised and where the Divisions do not correspond to the division of Parties, I ask what kind of reflection of the opinion of the country will be got out of the House at the end of August? Whatever else it may do, it will not give the country the judgment of this House on the Eight Hours Bill. I do not know what has passed in private between the right hon. Gentleman and the miners' representatives; but of this I am quite certain: that if these miners' representatives either have deluded themselves or have deluded their constituents into the belief that the Government mean business over this Bill, and really means to get it through the House, they are the most deluded even among the many deluded mortals of which this Assembly consists. All the Government want to do—a most legitimate object—is to secure their attendance and their votes while they are legislating for Ireland. When they have legislated for Ireland I think these gentlemen will find that, though a day or two may be tossed away in Committee for the purpose of airing this or that clause or this or that provision of the Miners' Bill, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Harcourt) has no more idea of sacrificing his holiday or his health for the purpose of passing this Bill than has the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), who told us that he was all in favour of sitting on
  422
  until October, though, for his part, business would take him into foreign parts. Sir, we all appreciate the difficulties in which the Government find themselves, but I would put it to all sections of the House, irrespective of Party, whether we do not as a legislative machine exist for some better purpose than merely to reconcile the different fractions of the Liberal Party? That is an honourable and estimable task to pursue, and anything I can do towards that end I should be glad to do. But we may make too great sacrifices even for an object like that, and I think that to ask us to go through the parade of legislation, when neither by our numbers nor by our individual vigour we are capable of really doing the work entrusted to us, is to destroy this House, to injure its reputation in the country, and to greatly impair its power of doing good work. I say nothing of the officers of the House, because it is easy to trot out their interests for the purposes of debate, but I ask the House to remember that we have arrived at the end of a period of labour to which Parliamentary history offers no parallel at all. I myself, and of course there are many others, have been engaged in the active work of discussing legislation continuously since the 1st of February of last year. I do not believe that it is physically possible for Ministers to do the work of this House and the work of their offices if they are called upon to do the work of this House for so long a period. It may be that we are blessed with Ministers who are so richly endowed with physical vigour that they are not the slaves of the weaknesses which attach to other men, but I am perfectly certain that unless they are these happily-gifted and exceptional mortals, it is quite impossible that they should be able to give the freshness of their minds to their departmental work, and, at the same time, carry on the continuous, the wearisome, and the exhausting labours imposed upon us by the programme of the Government. Sir, I will say no more except again most earnestly to urge the Government to remember the pledge they have given us with regard to the early termination of the Session. Their calculation as to the time that may be taken may be right, or our calculation may be right; but whoever is right, I am convinced that paramount above the petty interests of this

  423
  section or that section, and all the small considerations that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid before us to-day, rises up that extreme necessity of preventing the House of Commons, by sheer exhaustion, from losing all its efficacy for public purposes and work which can only have the result of degrading us in the public mind and of throwing on the other House of Parliament work which it is our business primarily to perform.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 205; Noes 256.—(Division List, No. 187.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) ARBITRATION BILL.—(No. 176.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. J. MORLEYrose to move the Second Reading, when
    THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHENsaid, he desired to submit to the Speaker a point of Order. He wished to know whether this Bill could be proceeded with? On April 19 the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Morley) asked leave to bring in a Bill entitled "The Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Bill," and it was ordered to be read a second time on April 23, when it again appeared upon the Paper as "The Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Bill." On April 30, however, without notice or the sanction of the House, it appeared upon the Paper as "The Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Arbitration Bill." That, he submitted, was not a permissible change of title. In Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice he found the following passages:—
    "It may become necessary, before the Second Reading of a Bill, to make considerable changes in its provisions, which can only be accomplished at this stage by discharging the Order for the Second Reading and withdrawing the Bill. If a change of title be necessary, the practice is to order the Bill to be withdrawn, and to move subsequently for leave to bring in another Bill. [Cheers.] But where the Bill is withdrawn, for the purpose of making numerous Amendments, without any change of title, a simpler form of proceeding is adopted."
    He submitted that, in accordance with the practice here explained, this Bill
    424
    ought to be withdrawn, and another introduced in its place.
    MR. SPEAKER: A Bill has always two titles, a long title, as it is called, and a short title. The long title is the governing title of the Bill, and leave is given to bring in the measure according to the long title, which remains the same in this case as it was when the Bill was brought in. That title is "A Bill to Facilitate and make Provision for the Restoration of Evicted Tenants to their Holdings in Ireland." The noble Lord says that on the Order Paper to-day it is called "The Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Arbitration Bill." The fact is, that the short title of a Bill which appears on the Order Book is to be regarded as a mere marginal note at the end of the Bill, and the title of this Bill has been used for the purpose of convenient reference should the Bill pass into law. If the noble Lord will look at the 8th clause of the Bill he will see these words: "This Act may be cited as the Evicted Tenants Arbitration Act, 1894." It is in harmony with this clause, which declares what is to be the statutory short title of the measure, that the title appearing on the Paper has been given to it. There has been no change in the Bill since leave was given to introduce it. This title was only given to the Bill for convenience of reference, and in order that the title on the Paper and the short title in the Bill itself should harmonise.
    MR. J. MORLEY: In rising to move the Second Reading of this Bill I find myself confronted by a rather curious change of position on the part of those who resist the measure. An extraordinary and most unfortunate change seems at the eleventh hour to have come over the temper and intentions of the Opposition respecting this Bill. I am sure that when the nature of this change is understood it will make a deep impression on the mind of the House. On the First Reading of the Bill no attempt was made to deny the existence of a difficulty in Ireland which it was the duty of any Government to make every effort to meet. Not every speaker, it is true, went as far as the right hon. Member for Bodmin, who said—
    "If they wished to effect a permanent and peaceful settlement they must do their best to abate the feeling of ill-treatment in the past.

    425
    Such a course would be in the interests of all parties; and it was certainly to the interest of those who thought that there might be a change of Administration in the near future that the question should be settled, for in whatever difficulties this band of dispossessed tenants might involve the present Government, any future Government, with a different political complexion, would be placed in infinitely worse difficulties."
    That was the language of the right hon. Member for Bodmin, and although every other speaker did not go as far as my right hon. Friend, even the Leader of the Opposition did not deny the existence of a social and administrative difficulty. Then the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University (Mr. Carson) said—
    "He should be certainly sorry to adopt a non possumus attitude on this question. He knew enough of Ireland to say that he believed and admitted that the question of the evicted tenants, whether they were rightly or wrongly evicted and whether they were evicted for the purpose of advancing a particular class of politics or not—that as long as it remained unsettled the question of the evicted tenants meant a great deal with reference to the peace of Ireland."
    Well, the next step was the placing, many weeks, if not months ago, of a notice on the Paper by the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell). Nothing ever daunts him. He put an Amendment down with a moderating preamble. It began in this way—
    "This House, while willing to accept just and practicable proposals for the reinstatement of the evicted tenants."
    The next step, however, was to take out the words, "just and practicable proposals," and it was clear from this change that the task of resisting our plans had been taken out of the hon. Member's hands and entrusted to those of an irreconcilable section, which would listen to no proposal, no matter how just and practicable, no proposal for dealing with the social mischief whose gravity had been admitted in all parts of the House. But now we find that a further step has been taken. This section to whom I would apply no language worse than "irreconcilable"—these gentleman would not be content unless the Amendment which was to express their determination to resist the Bill was in a form involving a deliberate retreat from the policy of the 13th section of the Act of 1891 and a deliberate declaration that gentlemen opposite are at last going to take up the position which the hon. and learned
    426
    Member opposite (Mr. Carson) said he would not take up—the position of non possumus. If the Amendment that is to be moved to-night has any meaning, that must be the meaning attached to it. I have never denied that there are enlightened and humane Irish landlords, but some of them are humane without being enlightened, and there a few who are neither enlightened nor humane. The hon. and gallant Member who is to move this Amendment belongs, I think, to the second category. He has never shown an enlightened appreciation of the difficulties which surround this and other portions of the Irish question. I cannot help saying that it is a misfortune that the Amendment has been taken out of the hands of the hon. Member for Tyrone, and has been transformed and altered, and, taking the form of the rejection of the Bill root and branch, has fallen into the hands of an hon. Gentleman who belongs to that irreconcilable section whose lamentable blindness has so often before now blighted the cause of peace and order in Ireland. Now, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham is reported to have said, and he has not denied the accuracy of the report—
    "I may remark that I am quite prepared to admit that it is most desirable that some equitable measure should be passed in the interests of evicted tenants. This can only be accomplished by an agreement between the Unionists and Gladstonians."
    Now, of course, it may be said that the settlement proposed in this Bill is not an equitable settlement. Yes; but if you deny that, in denying it do what the hon. Member for Tyrone asks you to do—namely, say that this Bill is brought in to meet a difficulty which is of the utmost gravity, and that it is of the utmost importance that it should be dealt with and removed. It was said only half an hour ago that this Bill bristles with new principles. I shall be surprised if the right hon. Gentleman or any of those who sit beside him can show me that there is one principle in this Bill for which a precedent cannot be found in the Irish legislation of the last 25 years. The first principle is the use of public money to recoup private loss. That was the basis of the Arrears Act of 1886. Then it is said you have no right to resort to the Irish Church surplus.

    427
    There, again, I turn to the Arrears Act. Precisely the same objections could be taken—that it was improper devotion of the Irish Church surplus to use it for the purposes of the Arrears Act. I want to know, in the language employed in 1882 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian, to what better use can you put the Church surplus or any other available fund in Ireland than to the restoration of peace and harmonious relations between landlord and tenant? Then we are told that the principle of compulsion in this Bill is intolerable. There is no doubt that, the principle of thrusting upon the landlord a tenant to whom he objects is found in more than one part of the Irish land code. The whole code is saturated with the principle of compulsion to which you are going to give such vigorous resistance. I should like to point out, after what the right hon. Gentleman said a short, time ago, that we are adopting no. new principle when we are asking the House to enable the arbitrating tribunal to put upon the landlord a tenant to whom he may have objections. Do those who use this kind of argument forget the free sale provisions of the Act of 1881? Under the provisions of the Act of 1881 the tenant is empowered to sell his interest, but he is obliged to serve a notice on the landlord naming the purchaser and the price agreed on, and, thereupon, the landlord has power within the prescribed period, but upon reasonable grounds, to decline to accept the purchaser of the tenant's interest. Who is to decide, according to the Act of 1881, what are or are not reasonable grounds? The Court—that is, the Land Commission. The Bill of 1881 set out four grounds which were to be held to be reasonable grounds, and which might justify the landlord in refusing to have this obnoxious tenant thrust upon him. I have not had time to look up the cause of the omission of those grounds, but for good reasons, no doubt, these grounds were omitted, and it is enacted in the Land Act of 1881, that in the case of dispute, the grounds of the landlord's refusal shall be decided by the Land Commission. That is exactly what we say here. We say that the tribunal of the three arbitrators are to decide whether the landlord's refusal to accept the tenant they have ordered to be reinstated is or is not unreasonable.
    428
    It is left to them just as in the free-sale clause, it is left to the Land Commission. In 1891, when the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Balfour) held the office I now hold, the Redemption of Rent Act was passed. By that Act certain classes of tenants could apply to have their rent redeemed, and, if the landlord did not consent, then the tenant was entitled to go to the Land Commission to get a fair rent fixed whether the landlord liked it or not. It is, therefore, too late in the day to take up the position that it is an intolerable injustice and an intolerable invasion of the rights of property that the landlord shall have a tenant put on him whom he does not approve of. The point was greatly pressed, I think, by the Leader of the Opposition, and certainly by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Dublin University, that we defined no principles upon which the tribunal was to go to work. Well, to that I have to say that the enormously important Act of 1870, in the section dealing with the equities of landlords and tenants, lays down no principle whatever upon which the Court is to decide, and in the Act of 1881 there are no directions. We had before us upstairs two or three days ago the very learned Judge who is the Chief Judicial Land Commissioner, and in answer to questions he informed us that the Legislature has abstained from embodying any definition whatever, or giving any indication whatever, of what constitutes a fair rent under the Act of 1881. Here is a vital point in the administration of the Act, and yet we are told by the learned Judge, and the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Carson) knows that it is so, that the Act of 1881 contains none of those directions and definitions of principle which you are so indignant with us for not having included in this Bill. There is one objection which the Leader of the Opposition took on which I should like to say a word or two. It is a detail, but not an unimportant detail. He said the evicted tenant may have had a rent fixed in 1885, and if he had not been evicted he could not have applied to have his fair rent revised until 1901. Is he, the right hon. Gentleman asked, as a restored evicted tenant to have the right to get his rent revised in 1894? No, Sir, that is not our Bill. It is not our intention that the evicted

    429
    tenant, generally speaking, when restored to his holdings should have rights he would not have possessed had he not been evicted. If the first clause as drawn can be shown not to deal effectively with this particular matter I shall be prepared to examine words for making it clearer. I may say that the learned Judge who presides over the Landed Estates Court has restored hundreds of evicted tenants to their holdings on estates in his Court, and has in many instances—so I am told—not only reinstated the tenants, but he has reinstated them at rents substantially lower than the rents they originally paid when they were evicted. Sir, there is another more serious objection, I think, on which I should like to say a few words, and it is one upon which I think the hon. Member for Tyrone has dwelt in his speech here and elsewhere. I mean the danger which our proposals are said to involve to a new tenant who should decline to consent to the order depriving him of the holding and restoring the old tenant. According to the Bill his consent is necessary, and the argument of the hon. Member for South Tyrone and of other gentlemen is that this requiring the assent of the new tenant—who I may perhaps remind those Members of the House who are not familiar with these matters—is known as a planter—will create a temptation to put violent compulsion by outrage and otherwise on him to secure the assent of the new tenant. Can anybody suppose that if there is this resolute determination in the minds of the evicted tenants or land jobbers to drive out the new tenant—can anybody suppose that the peril or hazard of that determination taking an active and violent form would not be just as great, yes and much greater, if the evicted tenants, as a body, were informed, once and for all, that the door of hope of facilitating their restoration to their holdings was closed?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The right hon. Gentleman has quoted me, but that is not my position.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I may have done the hon. Gentleman an injustice, but it is certainly the position taken up by the organs in the Press which support the views of these hon. Members, and of which we hear a good deal. There may be possible mischiefs in the proposals that we make. It is for you to point out the mischiefs. I will undertake to
    430
    say that, whatever mischiefs you point out in our plans, there is this difference between our plans and your absence of plans: The mischiefs in our plans are contingent and remote; the mischiefs in your absence of plans are certain, inevitable and flagrant. One more word on a point as to the reinstatement of the evicted tenants which was made on the occasion of the First Reading of the Bill, and which has been made in public controversy since. It is argued that the restored tenant would not have the means, if reinstated, to meet his liabilities. Here, again, it is perfectly clear that that is an uncommonly difficult question. I am the last man to deny it, and I want to meet all the difficulties as well as I can. My belief is that those whom the arbitrators think proper persons to reinstate, with the aid of their friends, or of contributions from some organisations, or other efforts, and particularly with the aid of this Bill, will pull through this particular difficulty. Anybody acquainted with Ireland knows that nothing is more surprising than the manner in which tenants with all the outward appearance of poverty somehow or other obtain the money to purchase farms whenever farms come into the market. That shows that there may be resources in the possession of these tenants themselves, which, if there is a hope of their legal reinstatement, with the assistance of the funds we are proposing to place at the disposal of the arbitrators, will ensure that the restored tenants on their reinstatement will have means to carry on, so that that is an objection without any great force. Another point that has been made is that the public hearing of applications by tenants will lead to protracted recriminations between landlords and tenants, and that the publication of these proceedings by the newspapers in Ireland will lead to a daily dose of exasperation which undoubtedly would be in the highest degree mischievous. Personally, I have a strong opinion that the proceedings before the arbitrators should be private, and I am advised that the words of the Bill do not preclude that mode of procedure. I shall, however, be prepared to strengthen the words of the Bill, if thought desirable; but I believe these words are adequate. There is just one other suggestion to which I should like to allude, which was made by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin Univer-

    431
    sity. He made the suggestion, which he said he would not claim novelty or originality for, that the sum proposed to be advanced should be expended in the purchase of some of those large tracts of land which, he assumed, are in the market, and which could be purchased in the present state of the Irish land market at a very low figure. That was a suggestion which was contained in the Report of the Mathew Commission. It would be the suggestion, no doubt, of anybody who has considered the condition of this problem, that those pieces of land under the jurisdiction of the Landed Estates Court should be purchased and provision made on those newly-acquired lands for tenants who have left the holdings to which they had gone, or for old evicted tenants who have not been restored to their holdings. Upon that suggestion I can only say we have a little experience. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition knows that when the Congested Districts Board was called into existence it made attempts in the direction of the acquisition of tracts of land, and I do not think the experience of that Board so far would make us treat this as a particularly hopeful suggestion. Nevertheless, if from any quarter of the House that suggestion is put forward in the shape of a practical Amendment, I will do my best to give it fair consideration, though, personally, I repeat I am not sanguine of its helping us out of our difficulty. There is no more vital point in the Bill than the composition of the proposed tribunal. On the First Reading of the Bill the right hon. Member for Bodmin saw that that would be a point upon which a good deal of discussion might turn, and upon which, in effect, the successful working of the Bill would depend. The Leader of the Opposition asked me whether the names of the arbitrators would be in the Bill, and I told him that they would. I am now able to announce the names of three gentlemen who, I believe, will fulfil all conditions which are desirable for the efficacious working of the Bill. They are all men of competence and impartiality, whatever their political leanings may be; and here I may mention that two out of the three are not in sympathy with Her Majesty's Government on Irish Government questions. But whatever their political views may be, I think it will be recognised that
    432
    these are the names of gentlemen from whom both Irish landlord and tenant may expect to receive fair and equitable and business-like treatment. The first gentleman is Mr. Piers White, who I think I am not wrong in describing as the undisputed leader of the Equity Bar in Ireland. His distinguished career and high character no one is better able to bear testimony to than the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin. The second name is that of Mr. George Fottrell, who has vast experience of business connected with Irish land. He has carried out great transactions of sale and purchase and has acted both for landlord and tenant on a very large scale, both in rent fixing and in transactions of purchase. Mr. Fottrell was, at all events, thought well enough of by gentlemen opposite to be invited by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Bristol to take a place on the Cowper Commission, the right hon. Baronet thinking his presence would give weight to its deliberations, whilst he would be an impartial as well as competent inquirer. The third person is Mr. Greer, a legal Sub-Commissioner from the very beginning, who was also chosen as a permanent Assistant Commissioner under the Land Act of 1891, passed by the right hon. Gentleman. These are the three arbitrators, than whom I do not think we could find three more impartial or competent in the whole of Ireland. Since the First Reading I am glad to find myself able to make an announcement which will be satisfactory and gratifying to all friends of this Bill. The figure mentioned in the Bill is £100,000. I thought at the time that it was a comparatively narrow sum, though small sums have some advantages and recommendations. My right hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian said when he brought in the Arrears Bill that there was something exceedingly fascinating in receiving public money; and that fascination is not less congenially and sympathetically felt in Ireland than in other parts of Her Majesty's dominions. Therefore, I should have felt that there were advantages for the purpose of thrift in the minds of the arbitrators by having a comparatively small sum. A Circular has been issued from the Treasury explaining the state of the Irish Church Fund, and in Committee I shall be glad to supplement that Paper by such observations

    433
    and explanations as may seem desirable. The Leader of the Opposition, with something of an envious and grudging turn of mind, said that he had, in 1890, endeavoured to get all the money he could for the purpose of endowing the Congested Districts Board, but he found that it was mortgaged up to the hilt, and could not understand how there came to be £100,000 to spared for the purposes of this Bill. The explanation how even a larger sum than that—as I shall presently mention—is now available is, as I am told by the confidential advisers to whom I referred, that the endowment proposed in 1890 may be taken as based on the position of the Fund on March 31st in that year. Any advance is, of course, more or less a forestalment of the future; but we have now come four years nearer to the date when a great drop in the charges on the Irish Church Fund takes place, and this renders the operation of forestalling the future less risky and hazardous to that extent. We shall, however, have abundant opportunity for discussing these and other details when we get into Committee. In four years outstanding arrears have been reduced by £100,000—a source of receipt which could not be calculated upon in 1890. Thirdly, and lastly, sales and redemptions have amounted to something like £117,000 a year, making a total of £465,000. Thus the immediate financial position is far more easy than it was in 1890. In the meantime, I am in a position to say I am informed, by those who cannot possibly give bad advice, that a sum, not only of £100,000, but of £250,000, can be made available for the purposes of this Bill. The same gentleman who gave the Leader of the Opposition a million and a half for the Congested Districts Board assures me that I can have it if it is required. I am quite confident, therefore, when the time comes I shall be able to obtain all that will be needed. There is one further point that refers to the magnitude ol the scale of operations we are asking to be allowed to undertake. So far as I can make out, the total number of holdings from which tenants were evicted between May, 1879, to the 1st of May, 1894, was something like 5,900. Through the operation of various causes there are about 2,000 holdings in respect of which no action will be required, and there is left a balance of 3,893, or,
    434
    roundly speaking, something under 4,000 holdings, as the probable maximum which might possibly come under the operation of the Bill. In the cases of the estates investigated by the Mathew Commission, the average rent was found to be between £15 and £16 a holding. If we assume, as I think we may, that the same scale would cover the whole field of the evicted tenancies, then the 4,000 cases would give an aggregate rental of £60,000. As the arbitrators are not entitled to award under the head of rent more than one year's rent, to take it at the highest, this leaves a very large margin out of the sum I have just mentioned for the two other possible payments to the new tenants, on the one hand, and on the other the payment, not exceeding £50, if the arbitrator thinks fit, to the tenant making a new start. It may be thought that these operations will cover a long period of time; but it need not be so, and I cannot believe it will be so. A couple of years ago there was an arbitration on the Drapers' Company estate, in which the hon. Member for North Louth and Mr. Thomas Dick-son, formerly a Member of this House, were concerned. The object of the arbitration was to fix the amount of purchase-money and to deal with £17,000 of arrears of rent. The arbitrators dealt with 560 cases; these were all settled within three months, all the evicted tenants restored, and satisfactory terms arrived at. [Mr. CARSON: Was that a voluntary settlement?] Yes, of course. I am only on the point of the time that it will take to dispose of a large number of cases. Other figures were given on the Committee upstairs by Mr. Justice Bewley. He said that in 1892 he delivered judgment in 1,650 appeal cases, all heard through; in 1891, in 1,485 cases; and in the three and a half years during which he had been Judicial Commissioner he delivered judgment in 4,540 cases, fully heard. I do not know why the arbitrators under the powers of this Bill should not get through their business, which is less complex in many ways than these appeals, with corresponding rapidity if they deal with tenants and cases in groups, as they will be able to do. I will only add that Ireland is now quiet, and tranquillity seems profound. But for my part I have been careful never to say, and I have never pretended to think, that this quietude is the

    435
    slumber of a sound and perfectly-established health. These are the moments the neglect of which has been followed by such disastrous consequences in the history of Ireland. It is the inveterate neglect of opportunity and occasion that might have been used for purposes of good, both for England and Ireland, that has left us face to face, time after time, with an aggravated malady. In view of the fatal lesson the negligence of this Parliament has taught to Ireland, I will be careful not to indulge in any prediction of the consequences that may follow the rejection of this measure, because predictions of possible disorder may be misinterpreted as an indication or a menace. Nothing is further from my intention. The House will not forget on how many occasions—several within the last 14 or 15 years—we have allowed favourable moments to pass by. I am confident that on this occasion for once Parliament, in this branch certainly, and I should be glad to think in minor branches, will not prove incorrigible, but will accept this favourable moment for satisfying an indispensable condition of social healing in Ireland.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. J. Morley.)
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, he rose for the purpose of moving "that the Bill be read this day three months," and in doing so he was well aware that he laid himself open to an attack of a kind similar to the attack made upon him by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman called him an "irreconcilable." On some points he was irreconcilable. As far as the Home Rule question was concerned, he acknowledged he was irreconcilable, but so far as dealing with the land was concerned, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman or any Member of the House had any right to call him irreconcilable, for he could appeal to his past Parliamentary history to show that such a term was misapplied. He supported the Land Bill of 1870 both by voice and vote, when such action was extremely rare amongst the class to which he belonged. He was perfectly well aware that the action he and his colleagues were taking on this occasion would lay them open to be pointed at by their political opponents as men who
    436
    were opposed to any solution of this question of the evicted tenants. They would be described as men who gloated over the sufferings of their tenants, and who desired nothing more than to turn them out of the holdings, deriving infinite pleasure and satisfaction from it. But to gloat over the sufferings of the evicted tenants in Ireland was an expensive pleasure, and a landlord, however depraved, would think of the expense. He cared not much what his opponents thought of him, and he did not think his colleagues cared much. But they opposed this Bill because they looked upon it as fatal to the future prosperity of Ireland. They looked upon the Bill as without exception the most extraordinary legislative monstrosity ever introduced either in this or any other Parliament on the whole face of the earth. Very naturally holding that view, rightly or wrongly, the only course they could pursue would be to meet it with a direct negative. They looked upon the Bill from three standpoints: There was the position taken by the Government, the view the landlords took of the Bill, and the view the tenants took of it. With regard to the Government, he did not know whether they were very anxious to proceed with this Bill. He observed that they required a certain amount of nudging during the course of this Session. They all remembered how, every now and then, the hon. Member for Kerry, in his most Olympian tone, asked the right hon. Gentleman when he intended to proceed with the Evicted Tenants Bill. Somehow or other the Evicted Tenants Bill lingered on towards the end of the Session, and at last driven, he expected, with their sails filled to the Irish wind from below the Gangway, they had brought in this Bill. How they viewed the Bill he thought they had discovered from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. The Chief Secretary wondered why they did not accept it. Evidently the right hon. Gentleman thought there was some weakness in the financial condition of the Bill, because, after the grant of this money, he still thought their tenants would be in want of assistance. He said—and he hoped the hon. Members below the Gangway were satisfied with it—that they were to get money somewhere to enable them in some way to pull through. This was a hopeful position for the Irish tenant. To

    437
    get money in Ireland somewhere was not always an easy way to pull through, and would involve an additional difficulty from which both landlord and tenant would shrink in affright. He did not blame the Government for bringing in this Bill, for the simple reason that they could not help it. He would say this of the Government—and it would be the most complimentary thing he would say of them in the course of his remarks—that when they started on their career they were the most promising Government that ever sat on the Treasury Bench. They promised everything to everybody. They did that dangerous thing—they backed a great many Bills, and the difficulty they had experienced was in getting their Bills renewed. Dear little Wales was promised the plunder of the Church, and similar promises were given to Scotland; but while the Welsh and Scotch renewed the Bills, the Irish knew better than to do that. They pinned the Government to a Bill with regard to which they themselves were pledged up to the eyes. Therefore, he did not blame the Government for introducing the Bill—they introduced it because they could not help it. Now, how did the Irish landlord look upon the Bill? Why was it that the Irish landlord looked upon this Bill as utterly unjust to him? Let them consider what would his position be if the Bill became law. Suppose he had evicted a tenant. He ventured to say that, as a general rule, no landlord in Ireland evicted a tenant unless five or six years' rent was owing. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] He did not say there were no exceptions; but certainly, as a general rule, no tenant was evicted unless he owed nearly five years' rent. He believed that statement could be shown to be absolutely true. Let them imagine, then, that 10 or 12 years ago a landlord got rid of a tenant who owed him five years' rent. The tenant disappeared from view, and another tenant occupied that farm. A great many of those who came into evicted farms had done very well, and had farmed the lands with success; but if this Bill passed into law what would happen? The old tenant might come back from America, or, if he had died, his representative might appear on the scene, and insist on being reinstated in the holding. What would happen then? The new tenant would be evicted. This
    438
    Bill, therefore, was not only a reinstating Bill; it was an evicting Bill. They proposed to evict at least 1,800 tenants and to replace them by men who had proved their incapacity either by becoming bankrupts or by joining the Plan of Campaign. That was the hopeful look-out for the Irish landlords. He thought, therefore, the House would understand why it was that the Irish landlords did not look with satisfaction on this Bill, under which the tenants who had worked the lands since 1879 would be evicted, in order to reinstate men who had proved themselves absolutely incapable of paying their way. He was glad that it had been elicited that only 1 per cent. of the Irish tenants had failed to effect a satisfactory settlement with their landlords. After all the land agitation that had occurred in Ireland, and after all that had been said about the thousands upon thousands of tenants who had perished by the roadside, it was satisfactory to hear that less than 1 per cent. of the evicted tenants had failed to get back under the satisfactory terms offered them by the landlords. He should not go into details now. They should have ample time in the next three weeks, which the Bill would occupy. If this Bill ever became law, which it never would [Several MEMBERS: Why not?] Because it would be thrown out in the other House. It would be thrown out by the other House, whose principal duty it was to rectify the mistakes made in the House of Commons. But if the Bill passed, a quiver of horror would run through every tenant who had occupied a farm since 1889. For what was the meaning of the Bill to those men? It meant that a farmer occupying and working a farm for the last 14 years might suddenly, and without the power of redress, be evicted from the farm in order that the former tenant might go into occupation. In other words, the Bill meant ruin to those men. Those men were called "land-grabbers" by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, and how were "the land-grabbers" to be treated if they did not comply with the orders of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway? He would read the words of the hon. Member for East Mayo, the principal leader of the Plan of Campaign, uttered on the 20th of May last, which showed that the tenants who had been in

    439
    possession since 1879 would not have a happy time—
    "What is the course that we recommend to the people of Ireland, and which we have always recommended in the past to the people of Ireland, to deal with the landgrabbers? [A voice: Shoot them.] I dare say you have all heard of the nursery rhyme in the days of your youth about 'Little Bo-Peep.' I would apply that rhyme to the landgrabber—
    'Let him alone,
    And he'll come home,
    And leave the grabbed land behind him.'"
    But it was dangerous to quote poetry unless one went to the end of the rhyme. "Little Bo-Peep" found her sheep, but she found them in a condition that made her heart bleed because they left their tails behind them, and that was exactly what would happen to the sheep of the landgrabber. He knew the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would tell them that the law was sufficient, if a Liberal Government was in power, to protect the new tenants against the attacks of the old tenants. The right hon. Gentleman had laid down a rule that no violent intimidation in the way of speeches was to be used within a mile of the landgrabber's house; and it was said that the mile was measured by a policeman treading out 1,760 yards. He did not know what put the right hon. Gentleman up to that principle of protection. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman learned something about explosives at sea. He went once on board a torpedo-boat to witness the explosion of a pole-torpedo, and was told by the officer in charge that the boat would be blown into the middle of next week by the torpedo if the pole was not a certain length. In like manner the pole of the Chief Secretary's new political torpedo was a mile long. But the length of the mile would depend on the policeman who walked it out, and if it were a short-legged policeman, and if the wind were in a fair way, and there was a loud-voiced Nationalist at the other end of the mile, the landgrabber would certainly hear his own condemnation. The right hon. Gentleman charged them, because they opposed this Bill, with being the enemies of Ireland, and of being the irreconcilable opponents of everything that made for peace and happiness in Ireland. But a very fair opportunity was undoubtedly given by them to these evicted tenants to re-enter their farms when they passed the 13th clause of the Act of 1879. Then why
    440
    did not more tenants avail themselves of it? Because their own leaders forebade them. Those leaders were determined that the evicted tenants should not go back to their farms except under triumphal arches erected by themselves. How did the leader of the Plan of Campaign treat that clause? He asked the particular attention of the House to this matter, because it showed that it was not the fault of the landlords that the vast majority of the evicted tenants were not now back in their farms. He should first remind the House that when the hon. Member for Mayo gave advice to the people of Tipperary, which was not supposed to be absolutely legal, he refused to stand his trial, and went on a yachting excursion with a friend instead of attending at the Court-house. He was glad to find that gratitude had not altogether fled from Ireland, because he saw that the son of the gentleman who took the hon. Member for Mayo on that yachting expedition got, the other day, an office worth £800 a year from the Corporation of Dublin. But in the end the hon. Member for Mayo did surrender, and he happened to be in prison when this 13th clause of the Land Act of 1891 was passed by the House, or, at any rate, he was in prison during part of the time in which evicted tenants could get back into their farms under that clause. When the hon. Member came out of prison the first thing he did was to make a speech at Dungarvan, in which he warned the tenants against availing themselves of the opportunity which the 13th clause gave them of re-entering their farms. He told the meeting that he was ashamed and sorry to hear that bids were reaching the land-agents from all quarters for those empty farms—
    "My advice to the tenants," he said, "is this: Be very slow to purchase your farms, or to have anything to do with this Land Act until after the General Election. Trust to your own exertions in your own localities. Abstain from taking those farms, and do not purchase at present."
    Here was an opportunity given to the tenants to re-enter their holdings; and the deliberate advice of the hon. Member for Mayo—who had learned nothing by his incarnation—was that those unfortunate people should remain as they were in Land League huts on the hillsides looking at their old farms, and not go back to them as owners under the Land Act of 1891.

    441
    Therefore, he thought he was right in saying that the blame for the present condition of the evicted tenants should fall on the heads of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, and especially on the heads of the hon. Members for Mayo and Cork, who by the Plan of Campaign became the greatest evictors that Ireland had ever seen, and only for whom there would never have been any necessity for this Bill. The Government would never have thought of bringing in this Bill were it not for one class of evicted tenants, and one class alone—the tenants known as the "Campaign tenants." It was to help those tenants that the Bill was introduced. Hon. Members below the Gangway were pledged up to their eyes that their chief endeavour would be to get a Bill of this kind passed into law. He read in a Tipperary newspaper that—
    "William O'Brien, whose word is as good as a millionaire's bond, and whose pledge is the nation's sheet-anchor, has guaranteed those tenants who manfully have resisted the assault of Lord 'Barry-no-more.'"
    Something had happened to that anchor recently; it had been badly damaged, and unless the Members for Cork and Mayo could prove to the evicted tenants that they had done something to redeem their promises, that anchor would finally be dragged out of the sea of Irish credulity. It was said to be a good thing to die for one's country; but he did not think the evicted tenants found it was a good thing to starve for their country. He asked, was it worth while for hon. Members below the Gangway, for the sake of carrying on their political campaign, to condemn those unfortunate people to lives of misery and wretchedness instead of leaving them in peace and plenty on their farms? It was said the Plan of Campaign had reduced rent. Nothing of the kind. The hon. Member for Mayo himself, at Limerick Junction, stated it was not at all a question of rent that caused the Plan of Campaign to be started, but that it was done for a purely political motive. In order to carry out that political purpose the hon. Member went through the length and breadth of the land and forced unwilling men to take a course in leaving their farms which they would never have taken unless under the strongest compulsion. To make an Irish patriot of an Irish tenant was not an easy thing. He required to be propelled from behind and
    442
    allured in front. The hon. Member for Mayo supplied the propelling power, and the allurement was the syren voice of the the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (the President of the Local Government Board), who promised that a fortnight after a Liberal Government was in Office all the evicted tenants would be restored. Many of those evicted tenants had gone back under settlements with the landlords, and were now described as traitors to the cause and unworthy of the name of Irishmen. He opposed this Bill, because he did not believe it would be good for Ireland. In fact, he believed it would supply in the future a lever to the hands of Irish agitators, to arouse an agitation in Ireland more dangerous than any they had experience of in the past. What hope of finality had the Government got, even if they passed their Bill? If there was any hope that Ireland would become peaceful and contented under the Bill, there would be a great strain brought to bear on him and his colleagues to support even a measure they thought so hopelessly bad as the measure before the House. But there was no prospect of finality, even if they passed the Bill. The hon. Member for Mayo had taken to making periodical visits to his (Colonel Saunderson's) constituency recently, of which he was very glad. He addressed his constituents the day after the hon. Member for Mayo's last visit to North Armagh, and he was able to talk with great eloquence for over an hour on the speech of the hon. Member. In that speech the hon. Member for Mayo made a statement which he (Colonel Saunderson) believed to be perfectly true, and which ought to be a warning to every Government that sat on the Treasury Bench. The hon. Member for Mayo said, speaking on the Land Question—
    "If we get Home Rule we will settle all those matters very soon; but if the Tories ever get back into power before we get Home Rule, I believe there will be one of the biggest land agitations that has ever been seen yet."
    No man could be on that subject a more perfect authority than the hon. Member for Mayo, who had conducted one of the greatest land agitations that these countries had ever seen; and the hon. Member now declared that if the Tories got back to power before hon. Members below the Gangway got Home Rule, another agitation would arise in

    443
    Ireland greater and more terrible than any that had gone before. What did that mean? It meant a renewal of those old scenes of crime and outrage and confusion which had made Ireland a byeword amongst the nations. Therefore, there was no finality and no prospect of peace in Ireland even if the Bill passed. In opposing the Bill, he and his Colleagues would meet with the approval of all the tenants in Ulster who followed them; and he believed they would meet with the approval also of the great majority of the tenants in the other parts of Ireland, because a Bill like that shook the foundations on which every tenant held the property in his farm. It was said that he and his Colleagues were doomed to extinction. That was quite possible; but even though they might belong to a fallen class, this consolation at any rate they would have, that they had done their best when the opportunity arose to destroy and defeat a measure which could justly be described as a measure to pay Irish criminal conspirators, out of the spoils of the Church, the wages of iniquity.
    MR. W. KENNYsaid, he rose to second the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend that the Second Reading of this Bill should be taken three months hence. Having regard to the monstrous provisions of the Bill introduced, and having regard to the immoral and inequitable principle embodied in it, he could not conceive how any Unionist, be he landlord or be he not, could take any other course but to move a direct negative. The Chief Secretary tonight, at the outset of his remarks, made some observations with reference to the change which he said the tactics of the Opposition had undergone with reference to the Motion for the rejection of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Motion that had been put on the Paper by his hon. Friend the Member for North Armagh (Colonel Sauuderson), and said that the hon. and gallant Gentleman in taking the course he had adopted was taking a retrograde step, which was a deliberate retreat from the 13th section of the Act of 1891. With the permission of the House he would like to say one or two words with reference to the position of the Unionists with regard to that 13th section of the Act of 1891 and the
    444
    position they occupied to-night with reference to the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman. When the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Bill on the 19th of April last he commented upon that 13th section of the Act and said that it would be futile to attempt to solve the question on the lines of Section 13 alone without the principle of compulsion. On behalf of gentlemen who sat on those Benches with him, and on behalf of the Ulster landlords, he thought he might say that they were perfectly willing to have the 13th section of the Act of 1891 re-enacted so as to give to any evicted tenant the benefits provided by that section. What were the benefits provided by that section? Without its aid the landlord had the right at any time he liked of reinstating any evicted tenant; he could put him back and place him in a position that would enable him to become a purchaser under the Land Purchase Act; but in reinstating him he would put him back on the land as a present tenant, conferring upon him the rights of present tenants, which included the right of fair rent and fixity of tenure in the soil. Under the 13th section the status of a tenant could be conferred on him without actual reinstatement. The landlords of Ireland—he did not speak in their name, but as one interested in the land question in Ireland — were perfectly willing that that section should be re-enacted without any time limit. The section as it stood limited the period within which the tenant might apply to purchase to six months, but there would be no objection to that section being re-enacted without any time limit. It was idle for the Chief Secretary to say that in taking the position which they had taken to-night there was any retreat from that 13th section. The Motion for the rejection of the Second Reading was simply adopted because the Chief Secretary, in his speech on that occasion, said it would be futile to consider the 13th section unless the principle of compulsion was attached to it. The Chief Secretary tonight referred to the principle of compulsion, and said he would be able to find precedents throughout the Land Acts for the principle of compulsion embodied in the Bill now before the House; that the whole code of the Land Acts was saturated with compulsion.
    MR. J. MORLEY: Hear, hear!
    MR. W. KENNYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman said "Hear, hear!" but he (Mr. Kenny) must say he was considerably astonished when he, for the first time in his life, heard it asserted that the Land Acts of 1881, 1885, 1887 were saturated with compulsion. He admitted that into one Act the principle of compulsion did come in a modified way—namely, in the Redemption of Rent Act. When the right hon. Gentleman cited cases in which he contended an obnoxious tenant could be forced on the landlord, what were the clauses he referred to? They were the Purchase Clauses of the Act of 1881.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I said the Free Sale Clauses.
    MR. W. KENNY: Well, the Free Sale Clauses. What did they find there? Only a transfer of the existing tenancy; but, not, as in the Bill before the House, the introduction of a person who was a complete stranger to the holding, and who had no legal or equitable right of any sort. In the Act of 1881 they did not find the introduction of any person in that position into the holding or forced upon the landlord. In the Redemption of Rent Act there was an existing tenancy, also an existing holding, but they did not find the landlord in possession of that holding; they found a long leaseholder, or, it might be, a person holding under a fee farm grant, and under the Redemption Act he might purchase his rent, and if the landlord refused he was allowed to apply to the Land Court to have a fair rent fixed. Was there any analogy there to the Bill that was now before the House, which sought to force upon the landlord a person who had no legal or equitable interest in the holding? The Chief Secretary, in the course of his speech, referred to the transactions of the Landed Estates Court in Dublin, and he told the House, that the Judge of that Court, Mr. Justice Monroe, had on many occasions reinstated the tenants in their homes. In reinstating the tenants in their holdings did he reinstate them as present tenants? No; he made temporary lettings to them, which, by the 58th Section of the Act of 1881 excluded them from having a fair rent fixed or of availing themselves of any of the provisions of that Act. These were the precedents which the Chief Secretary said were precedents for his Bill of 1894, and which he said embodied the principle
    446
    of compulsion contained in this Bill. As he had said, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman had certainly caused him very great surprise, because he could not find that in a single one of the instances the right hon. Gentleman had taken was there any attempt to force a mere outsider, and, as he contended, an insolvent, and, in some cases, a criminal outsider, upon the landlord whom he had defrauded. What did the present Bill propose to do? As he said, he was not particularly interested in the landlords of Ireland. He was not a landlord himself, he did not own a single rood of land in Ireland; but he was, however, one of a section in this House who did believe the landlords of Ireland had been sufficiently plundered already. There were other parties in the House who believed the landlords had not been sufficiently plundered. How did the land question at the present moment stand? They had the authority of the Leader of the Irish Members who sat below the Gangway, the hon. Gentleman who represented Longford (Mr. Justin McCarthy), for the statement that the
    "feudal powers of the Irish landlords, the unexampled execution of arbitrary eviction, had been shattered and destroyed, and that the two essential principles of the Land League had become the law of the land."
    That was the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Longford (Mr. Justin McCarthy), and he thought they might take it from that pronouncement that the hon. Gentleman regarded to a large extent, the agrarian question in Ireland, the question as between landlord and tenant, as practically at an end. What was the object of the present Bill, and what class of persons in Ireland was it intended to benefit? It was not brought in in the interests of the evicted tenants alone, it was brought in, he contended, in the interests of another party altogether. It was brought in in the interests of the two hon. Gentlemen—the Member for Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien) and the Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon), and for the purpose of saving their credit. It was not for the purpose of benefitting the old evicted tenant, the tenant who was evicted before the Plan of Campaign. Anyone who read the observations of the Chief Secretary in introducing the Bill on the 19th April last would see the right hon. Gentleman disregarded to a large extent the claims of

    447
    those tenants evicted before the Plan of Campaign, because the right hon. Gentleman's observations from beginning to end were directed to the Plan of Campaign tenants, and to these alone. The right hon. Gentleman said on that occasion that the Plan of Campaign tenants were the main centre of the mischief in Ireland, and it was for the benefit of these tenants—
    MR. J. MORLEY; I did not say so.
    MR. W. KENNYsaid, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would agree with him in this statement, that the Campaign estates were the centre of the mischief in Ireland. But they had other pronouncements besides those made by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, and he would like to know whether this Bill was brought in for the purpose of carrying out any pledge given to the Plan of Campaign tenants in Ireland by a present Cabinet Minister. The President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) visited Ireland some years ago, and what did he tell them? He said that within a month after the Liberal Party was in power every emergency man would have fled the country, and that every bogus tenant would have been replaced by the original tenant. That was a statement made by a gentleman who was one of the advisers of Her Majesty at the present time, and he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he spoke, as he dared say he would, in this Debate, whether he was prepared to stand by the language he used in 1889? He would like to ask him one further question. The Plan of Campaign had been condemned as an illegal combination by every Judge in Ireland, and he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he was a subscriber to the Plan of Campaign funds, and whether, when he subscribed, he was aware it was an illegal combination? His contention to-night was that this Bill was not brought in in the bonâ fide interest of either the Plan of Campaign tenants in Ireland or the other tenants who were evicted before the Plan of Campaign was established, but that it was a Bill brought in with a purely political object. They now knew, from confessions made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the Plan of Campaign was a purely political engine, that it was started for the purpose of embarrassing the then Government and for
    448
    the purpose of putting the gentlemen who now sat on the Treasury Bench into the position they now occupied. That was not an object that would commend itself to the House. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon) told them that a number of the Plan of Campaign tenants were tenants who were able to pay their rents. They all remembered what the hon. Gentleman said at Glenbeigh, that he could point out tenants who could pay their rent, but would not, because he told them not to. That combination, it was admitted, in a number of estates where the landlords were in small circumstances and unable to resist the pressure brought against them, was successful, and stimulated by this they attacked another estate—namely, the Lansdowne Estate, because they thought that as the owner occupied a high position in the service of the Queen, they would drive him into terms with them. The pressure, however, was resisted, and resisted successfully. There was one other matter in connection with this Bill that he should like to call attention to. Some people thought that the object of the Plan of Campaign, and the events that followed from it were not mixed up with any criminal combination. There were two classes of evicted tenants, the evicted tenants who came into the criminal class, who were the promoters of the combination and who, after the evictions, assisted to boycott the farms and created derelict farms throughout Ireland. There was another class of evicted tenants, for whom there was, and perhaps there ought to be, a great deal of sympathy—namely, the unfortunate tenants who had to follow the lead of these men from fear of being boycotted and intimidated. These were the men for whom the landlords of Ireland, he had no doubt, had great sympathy, and that was the class of persons reinstated by the landlords under the provisions of this 13th section of the Act of 1891. The question of outrage, or no outrage, the question as to whether or not there was a criminal class amongst these evicted tenants was no academic question. Could it be said for a moment that the footsteps of the promoters of the Plan of Campaign were not followed by crime in every direction? The Chief Baron of the Exchequer, in a case heard before him in Ireland in 1890, said that it was impossible to arrive at any conclusion but one,

    449
    that it was conclusively proved there was a conspiracy existing to induce tenants not to pay their rents, which contemplated boycotting, assaults, and violence of every description. What did the present Bill propose to do? It proposed to allow every evicted tenant whose tenancy had been determined since 1879 to apply to these three arbitrators, to be reinstated in his holding with the right of the landlord to insist if he thought fit that the evicted tenant should purchase the holding. That was the application of the principle of compulsion to the case of the evicted tenants, subject certainly, as the Chief Secretary said, to the right of the arbitrators, not to entertain the application if they thought right. It placed within a category a certain set of people who were to be entitled to the benefit of the Act, and the set of people, as he had said, consisted of two sections, one a section who might be the criminal leaders of the Plan of Campaign on a particular estate, and the other individuals who were unable to resist the pressure brought to bear upon them. To come to the provisions of the Bill. A very serious and arguable question might arise upon the 1st clause. The House would remark that it commenced with a declaration that, where the tenancy of the holding in Ireland had been determined since the 1st of May, 1879, the former tenant or his personal representative might within one year after the commencement of the Act, apply to the arbitrators under the Act to be reinstated as tenant. If not too technical in his remarks, he would point out that the term "holding" might include any holding which was excluded by the 58th section of the Act of 1881. If it were to be the case that any tenant in Ireland was to be entitled to petition for reinstatement and was to be reinstated by the arbitrators then they would have not only purely agricultural tenants, but also tenants who had been evicted from dwelling-houses, town parks, demesne lands, and large pastures entitled to the benefit of the section. [Mr. DODD: Why not?] An hon. Member asked "Why not?" and his answer to that was that the Land Act of 1881 was intended to benefit purely agricultural tenants and not such tenants as the holders of demesne and town park lands. One of the sections of the Act absolutely excluded tenants of this character from the operation
    450
    of the Bill. The question was not arguable.
    MR. DODD: My point was that I could not understand why the occupiers of dwelling-houses should not be placed on the same footing.
    MR. W. KENNYsaid, he did not understand the nature or object of the hon. Member's interruption. The proposition now seemed to be that not only in the agricultural districts but also in the towns and cities of Ireland there should be in force an Act of Parliament enabling any one who had been evicted for non-payment of rent, and who was in the position of an absolute and complete stranger to the holding to be reinstated. The result would be that men who had been evicted from dwelling-houses, town parks, demesne lauds, or large pasture holdings would be reinstated as present tenants side by side with men who, as they had not gone through the ordeal of eviction, had no such status under the Act of 1881. Did the right hon. Gentleman contemplate such a result as that? If he did they would be putting side by side throughout the agricultural districts of Ireland two sections of the community—one class of men who had no rights unless they had gone through the ordeal of eviction; and the other class, men who had been honest and solvent rent-paying tenants. There was another question arising on this section which he would commend to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. The first section of the Bill provided for the reinstatement of tenants whose tenancy had been determined since 1879. A tenancy was deemed to be determined if the landlord had purchased the tenant's interest, and yet, under this Bill, the tenant who probably had been paid for his interest in hard cash would be entitled to apply for reinstatement. Tenants who had come to terms with their landlords, and had voluntarily surrendered their holdings in lieu of arrears of rent, and who possibly had left the country, would also come under the Bill. The words of the clause were exceedingly vague. Then the arbitrators were authorised to make an order for reinstatement if there was a primâ facie case for reinstatement owing to the circumstances of the district, or the circumstances under which the eviction took place, or some other cause appearing to them sufficient. He did not think it possible to introduce more vague or

    451
    general drafting into any Bill. The right hon. Gentleman professed to have found a precedent for his proposals in the Acts of 1881 and 1891. But was there any such precedent, and had the right hon. Gentleman made inquiries of the Irish Land Commission as to whether or not the Commissioners had been able to act on the vague expressions contained in the Act of 1881? What were the "circumstances of a district" that were to influence a Board of Arbitrators? Was the refusal of a landlord to accept a year's rent in settlement of five or six years' arrears to constitute such a circumstance? He ventured to think that arbitrators seeking to act on instructions so vague as these would be utterly at sea. The Report of the Mathew Commission found that the Plan of Campaign was adopted on the Smith-Barry property on sentimental grounds alone—namely, because of the action of the hon. Member for South Hunts in regard to the Ponsonby estate. He would like to ask the Chief Secretary whether, under the words "some other cause appearing to them sufficient," the arbitrators were to take into consideration the action of the hon. Member in regard to the Ponsonby estate. If that were so, it would be a most monstrous thing that three gentlemen who knew nothing of the circumstances were to determine that the conduct of the hon. Gentleman in taking the action he did in regard to the Ponsonby estate was wrong. The right hon. Gentleman in creating this Board of Arbitration was constituting a new tribunal in Ireland. They already had a Landed Estates Court, and a Land Commission dealing with land questions, and now a third body was proposed. When the Bill was introduced last year one of the hon. Members for Leitrim suggested that the question of the evicted tenants should be dealt with, not by a new or separate tribunal, but by the Land Commission. That proposal had not, however, found favour, and so the Chief Secretary proposed to create this new body, and to give no power of appeal against its decisions. He thought it would be most unfortunate that they were to have absolute and final power, and that their decision should not be subject to appeal. He submitted that that was a very grave defect in the Bill. Appeals were given from the Sub-Commissioners to the Land Commission on questions of
    452
    value, and there was power of appeal on questions of law from the Land Commission to the Court of Appeal in Ireland. He thought it was monstrous to make the decisions of this new Board of Arbitrators final. His next point arose on the 3rd section, which provided for the case in which a new tenant had come into the holding. They might call the new tenant a planter, but he had been adopted by the landlord, and in almost every case had paid his rent as an honest man. That new tenant might object to an order for reinstatement, and thereupon the arbitrators were not to make an order. What would be the future position of the tenant? If he chose to remain in the holding he would do so at great risk. The Chief Secretary had said he had introduced the Bill for the purpose of healing a deep sore in Ireland. Did the right hon. Gentleman think that in cases where a new tenant refused to go out his life would be happy or that the Bill would not create the most intense dissatisfaction amongst these new tenants? They had had recently a recrudescence of the agitation in Ireland against men who were termed "grabbers"—men who were said to have grabbed farms. Numerous question had been of late addressed to the right hon. Gentleman on the subject, and speeches of a violent character had been made—some of them by Members of that House—in different parts of the country against those men, and the substance of the speeches had been that the life of the grabber or planter must be made too unhappy for him to remain in his holding; these men were to be driven out, though they might have legally and honourably held possession for several years. Did the right hon. Gentleman contemplete that result from the passing of his Bill? The Nationalist papers were day after day teeming with articles on the question of grabbed farms, and the view seemed to have presented itself to hon. Members that the land-grabber was the principal obstruction to the legislation of the right hon. Gentleman. He held in his hands a Wexford paper which took that view, and which further blamed the people for not having been more in earnest, and added that they ought to make it hot for them, as if they did not take action the land-grabber would remain in possession of the evicted farms. What was the meaning of that?

    453
    It was that the unfortunate man who had taken an evicted farm and had been spending his money upon it for the last four or five years was to have it made hot for him if he dared to remain in possession. He was told, in fact, to make way for the dishonest tenant. The Bill proposed not alone to reinstate the evicted tenant, but to place him in a position wholly different from that occupied by the tenant who purchased under the Acts of 1885 and 1887, or under the 13th section of the Act of 1891 by subsidising the man who had gone through the ordeal of eviction. The landlord was to get a sum not exceeding two years' arrears of rent, and the tenant was to pay or secure the rent for one of those years, while the State was to secure, or advance, the other, and to assist him by enabling him to rebuild such dwellings on the holding as had been destroyed.
    MR. CRILLY: Burnt down.
    MR. W. KENNY: "Burnt down," if the hon. Member wished to use the term. At any rate, the State was to advance the tenant a sum of £50 for rebuilding purposes, and he ventured to say that such a provision would create great discontent and dissatisfaction in the minds of all the neighbours of those reinstated tenants who had endeavoured to pay their rent honourably from year to year. The Bill as it stood was open to many other criticisms. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that night that he intended to increase the sum to be placed at the disposal of the arbitrators from £100,000 to £250,000. Why had he done that? They had it on the authority of the right hon. Gentleman that there were 3,800 evicted tenants in Ireland at the present time who might seek to avail themselves of the benefit of the Act. The pressure of that circumstance no doubt accounted for the increase in the amount.
    MR. J. MORLEY: That is the maximum number.
    MR. W. KENNYsaid that, at any rate, provision would have to be made for 3,800 tenants. Was this Bill meant to pass? Hon. Members after that Debate would come to the conclusion that there was a great deal of unreality in the effort to pass it. He felt confident that few people believed that the measure would pass, or was even meant to pass. Even the evicted tenants themselves did not believe it was going to pass. He no-
    454
    ticed the other day an account of an inquest in Cork on the body of a man—an evicted tenant, who had died under an archway, having refused a home which had been offered to him, and had eventually succumbed to exposure; and the coroner, in putting the case before the jury, asked them to consider whether the tenant was under the hallucination that Mr. Morley was going to restore the evicted tenants. If this Bill should become law its main effect would be to create discontent and irritation in the highest possible degree. He agreed with the hon. and gallant Member who moved the rejection of the Bill that there was no finality whatever in it, and that instead of healing the wound of which the Chief Secretary spoke, it would only widen and deepen it, and would create greater friction than had ever existed in Ireland, not only between landlord and tenant, but also among different sections of Irish tenants.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Colonel Saunderson.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. LOCKWOODsaid, this question was one in which he had for a long time taken a deep interest, and it was one with which he had become intimately connected in the course of his professional career. In 1888 when, with others, he was engaged in the long inquiry known as the Parnell Commission, he became familiar with the terrible history of Irish distress and with the terrible tale of Irish evictions. He was not at all surprised to find that the Chief Secretary was in considerable doubt as to how the Opposition intended to deal with the measure, for they were under the impression that the Bill was to be met by an Amendment which began with words with which he felt sure every true friend of Ireland, upon whichever side of the House he sat, must thoroughly sympathise. The words were—
    "That whilst willing to consider any just and practicable proposal for the reinstatement of the evicted tenants,"
    and then the Amendment went on to express an opinion in a sense hostile to the measure. With that criticism and that

    455
    expression of hostile opinion they did not, of course, agree; but they admired the courage which had distinguished an hon. Member sitting on that side of the House, and which had enabled him to stand up for that which he believed to be justice in this matter—that the proposal submitted was one which could not be met merely with a cold negative of the hon. Member for the St. Stephen's Green, or be disposed of by the more warlike demonstration of the hon. and gallant Member who moved the rejection of the Bill. He recognised, and he thought the House would recognise, that there was an expression of sympathy in the words he had quoted for which, whether they agreed with the conclusion to which the Amendment would lead or not, they ought to feel thankful. He felt sure he was prepared, if it had fallen to his lot to meet the measure with this Amendment, to deal with the question in that spirit of conciliation which was the only true spirit in which it could properly be approached. But they were met here by a negative and nothing else. They had had a speech from the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh, and one from the hon. and learned Gentleman for the City of Dublin, in which they were invited simply to negative the proposal of the Government, and no solution—no suggestion of a solution—of these difficulties was offered by either of these gentlemen. However much they might differ with the hon. and learned Member, he did in his speech refer to the Bill and attempt some criticism of it; but the hon. and gallant Gentleman, he ventured to say, had established a record, for he had criticised the Bill without referring to a single line of it, and where he had failed in detailed criticism he had made up in that wealth of invective which belonged solely to gentlemen in his honourable profession. To deal with some of the criticisms of the hon. and learned Gentleman he thought, first of all, he was in error when he said that the Chief Secretary for Ireland in dealing with Section 13 of the Act of 1891 claimed for it that it was on all-fours with or went as far as the Bill with which they were now dealing. The right hon. Gentleman had said nothing of the kind. What he had said if he (Mr. Lockwood) had rightly understood him, was, "The principle of Section 13 of the Act of 1891 sanctions
    456
    the policy of my Bill. I am not to be reproached with exceptional policy in this regard, because in this 13th section of the Bill of 1891 you have that very policy foreshadowed which my Bill will endeavour to complete." The right hon. Gentleman's answer, he took it, would be, "I do not claim that my Bill is only co-extensive with the 13th section of the Act of 1891." They were grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for going beyond the four corners of that section, for experience had shown that it was not in itself sufficient. If it had been the present measure would have been unnecessary. Then complaint was made about thrusting an obnoxious tenant upon the landlord. The hon. and learned Gentleman must have forgotten the procedure of the Bill—he must have forgotten that before even the arbitrator could be called on to decide as between the landlord and tenant, that the tenant had to make out what was called in the Bill a primâ facie case, and if he failed to make that case out to the satisfaction of the arbitrator his case could never be heard. When a primâ facie case was made out then the third sub-section provided procedure which he should have thought ample to secure any landlord from having a tenant thrust on him in a way that would render reinstatement an injustice. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that under the Bill the landlord might have forced upon him a mere "outsider." Who did the hon. and learned Member mean when he spoke of an outsider? Did he mean a man outside his tenancy? He was in that sense an outsider. He was outside his tenancy, and in many cases it was a cruel shame that he was outside it. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman use this term "outsider" as an epithet of reproach? If he did it was in that sense and under those conditions most inapt. The man was no outsider. In nine cases out of ten he was a man who had lived his life there and had followed others who had lived their lives there. The hon. and gallant Member might have a very keen knowledge of these Acts of Parliament, but he had told them very frankly that he had no connection with the land. That might explain his having so little knowledge of the people who had dwelt upon it. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman complained of the Bill. He said it was com-

    457
    pulsory, and, as being compulsory, was apt to work injustice. He (Mr. Lockwood) had no wish to weary the House by recalling to its recollection what was to be done before the tenant could be reinstated. But it should be remembered that after establishing a primâ facie case the 3rd sub-section of Clause 1 applied. That sub-section was in these words:—
    "If the landlord so shows cause the arbitrators shall hear the parties, and after consideration of the question whether the conduct of either landlord or tenant has been unreasonable, or whether the one has unreasonably refused any proposal made by the other, may dismiss the petition or make the order absolute subject or not to conditions to be performed by either landlord or tenant, and generally may make such order in the matter as the arbitrators may think most consistent with justice."
    The hon. and learned Gentleman would, he was sure, admit that if this procedure was honestly carried out and these duties were faithfully discharged by the Gentlemen who were to be appointed arbitrators under the Bill the word compulsory could not be applied to the reinstatement. When the hon. and learned Gentleman was criticising the Bill he (Mr. Lockwood) had waited in vain to hear a criticism of the names the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had disclosed as being those he proposed to submit to the House as worthy of the office created by the measure. The hon. and learned Gentleman had not made a single suggestion that it was to be supposed for a moment that these gentlemen were not perfectly honest or would not properly carry out their duties. What was the hon. and learned Gentleman's next grievance? He objected to the £50 for the rebuilding of houses. This was rather surprising. He (Mr. Lockwood) should have thought that the hon. and learned Member would have paused before in any way inviting public attention to the circumstances which rendered that provision necessary. Anyone who took the trouble to read the account of the wanton and indefensible destruction of houses in connection with these evictions could but feel that if these things were done under the name of law, they were acts calculated to bring the law into the direst contempt. He did not know that he quite appreciated the relevancy of the reference to the Coroner's inquest which the hon. and learned Member had referred to. He did not know what the result of the inquiry was, or
    458
    what application it had to the question before the House. He came now to what he would call the record Second Reading speech of the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Saunderson). The hon. and gallant Member's speeches began, as his speeches generally did begin, with something about himself. The hon. and gallant Member said he ought not to be called an irreconcilable, because he voted for the Land Act of 1870. But what place did the hon. and gallant Gentleman represent in 1870? The hon. and gallant Gentleman was reconcilable, and voted for the Land Act of 1870 when he was Member for Cavan, but he was irreconcilable, and voted against this Bill when he was Member for North Armagh. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said he did not intend to deal with the details of the Bill. That promise was given early in his somewhat discursive observations, and it was a promise which was rigorously kept till the time he sat down. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, speaking not in detail but at large on the subject of the Bill, said it "was the most extraordinary monstrosity that had been produced in this or any other Parliament." Let him (Mr. Lockwood) give a friendly word of warning to the hon. and gallant Member. Let him not get rid of all his superlatives now; otherwise he would have nothing left for the Home Rule Bill. Then they were told that if this Bill passed there could be no prospect of peace; but what prospect of peace was there if it did not pass? The evicted tenants in Ireland were looking forward to this measure with an anxiety which no language could adequately describe. It was an expectancy which, if it were not realised, must have disastrous results. The hon. and gallant Member frankly told the House that this Bill should not become law. How did he know that? He (Mr. Lockwood) supposed that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had the confidence of "another place." The House would note, and he thought the country would note, that the Mover of the rejection of the Bill warned the House that even if they passed the Bill it would be rejected in another place. He (Mr. Lockwood) hoped with all his heart that wiser counsels might prevail; but if not he would ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman what then would be the prospects of peace?
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: Where?
    MR. LOCKWOOD: Either in Ireland or in England. He came now to what he might venture to call the grand finale of the hon. and gallant Member's speech. The hon. and gallant Gentleman told hon. Members that they were called upon to pay Irish conspirators the wages of iniquity out of a despoiled Church. Yes, but there was no objection to despoiling that Church when the money was to go into the pockets of the Irish landlords. It would form an interesting subject of inquiry to ascertain how much of the money of that Church had gone into the pockets of the Irish landlords.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: The hon. and learned Gentleman does not seem to be aware that the money under this Bill is to go into our pockets.
    MR. LOCKWOODsaid, that was just what he was coming to. He was about to tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman not to be downhearted, for this money would come to him as well. He was glad to see that the hon. and gallant Gentleman appreciated the position. Well, was there any justification for this last attack—namely, that the money was to go to pay criminal conspirators, and was to be taken from a despoiled Church? There were, it was said, two classes of tenants to be dealt with. The one class appeared to have the sympathy of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and the other class the hon. and gallant Gentleman said would have sympathy from none. These were the men who, notwithstanding the fact that they were in better circumstances themselves, had had some regard for their weaker brethren, and, seeing their hard lot had at great sacrifice to themselves hastened to assist them. Did the hon. and gallant or the hon. and learned Member think that the tenants of Ireland as a body would consent to a reinstatement one of the terms of which was to leave outside the pale of the arrangement the men who had stood beside them in the hour of their need? If the hon. and gallant and the hon. and learned Gentlemen thought that they little understood their fellow-countrymen. Why, on the Massereene estate the tenants had an abatement offered, which they would have accepted but for the fact that two ringleaders, as they were called, were left outside the proposed arrangement, and so the rest of the tenants refused to
    460
    be reinstated. All honour to them for it! It would be a disgrace, indeed, to the Irish tenants; it would be conduct of which he did not believe them capable, that they should consent, even if Parliament asked them to do so, to enter into their holdings and to leave still out in the cold the men who had made the greatest sacrifices for them in their time of need. It was said on the first reading of the Bill that to take the funds from such a source as that indicated in the Bill would amount to sacrilege. Certainly no such language as that had been used on the present occasion. The money was, in fact, to come from a fund which in 1880 supplied £1,500,000, the greater proportion, if not the whole, of which found its way into the pockets of the landlords. On other occasions the same fund had been drawn upon, and the landlords had benefited from it as they would benefit in the present instance. But was it an uneconomic act on the part of the Government to propose this Bill, even if the matter were put upon the lowest ground? What had been the cost to the country of the evictions that had taken place since 1879—the cost of the attendance of the police, the attendance of the military, the arrests, the convictions, the maintenance of prisoners in gaol, the outdoor relief, and the grants under the Prevention of Crimes Act. The cost had been £115,418. Therefore, putting the matter on the lowest ground of pounds, shillings, and pence, the proposal was justified. By the passing of this Bill the landlords would benefit, the tenants would benefit, and the public would benefit. Who, then, was to prevent them from having it? The hon. and gallant Gentleman said "another place." Then let the House of Lords bear the penalties and the responsibility. The responsibility would not, however, he felt sure, rest upon the House of Commons, for he believed that House would pass the Bill by a large majority.
    MR. CARSON: The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down commenced his speech by reminding us that his interest in the country from which I have the honour to come was first inculcated by his connection with the Special Commission. If there is one thing more than another that I am personally aware of in connection with the hon. and learned Gentleman it

    461
    is this, that in any matter in which he is professionally engaged he is always sure to ensure a righteous verdict. When he reminded me that he had been engaged in learning the Irish Question as a professional advocate before the Special Commission, I was tempted to turn to the verdict of the Special Commissioners as to the motives and objects of the evicted tenants in Ireland, whom we are now asked by this Bill to restore to their holdings. Of course, Sir, if those tenants had been evicted because they were oppressed by the Irish landlords, that would be an aspect of the case with which many Members might sympathise. But what was the verdict which the hon. and learned Gentleman assisted in getting? It was that these evictions had been brought about by a criminal conspiracy and by illegal means, with the object of expelling from Ireland those landlords who are styled the English garrison. The hon. and learned Member says that his interest in this question of the evicted tenants was aroused for the first time—
    MR. LOCKWOOD: I did not say the first time.
    MR. CARSON: Well, that it was aroused by the Commission, and that that was his reason for addressing the House—because there was an illegal conspiracy to expel Englishmen from Ireland. I am not going to follow the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He is always eloquent, always able, and, above all things, always good-natured. Certainly, as far as his good-natured chaff went, I had not any reason for wishing to interfere between him and the House. I turn to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. J. Morley). The right hon. Gentleman did me the honour of referring to the observations I made on the introduction of this Bill by him in April last. The right hon. Gentleman insinuated to the House that in some way or other I had changed my mind or my position in regard to this Bill. I have done nothing of the kind. What I said then, and what I say now, I will read to the House. I said—
    "I know enough of Ireland to say that I believe and admit that the question of the evicted tenants, whether they were rightly or wrongly evicted, and whether they were evicted for the purpose of advancing a par-
    462
    ticular class of politics or not, that as long as it remains unsettled the question of the evicted tenants means a great deal with reference to the peace of Ireland."
    I said that then, and I say that now; but why did the right hon. Gentleman stop there and not read the next sentence, in which I said—
    "I do not wish it for a moment to be supposed I thought the right hon. Gentleman had proposed a satisfactory solution."
    I said that then, and I say that now; and I do not see any reason in the world why the right hon. Gentleman should insinuate to the House or to anyone that I, at all events, have changed my position or changed my regard to this Bill.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I never meant to insinuate that he had changed his convictions with regard to the Bill. What I meant and said was, that the substitution of the Resolution of the hon. and gallant Member behind him for the Resolution of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) meant that the Party opposite had taken a non possumus attitude, which the hon. and learned Gentleman had repudiated.
    MR. CARSON: I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman quoted me in reference to the matter, if not insinuating to the House in some way or other I had receded from the position I ventured to defend on the occasion of the First Reading. But that is a matter of very little importance, and what I wish now to discuss somewhat in a serious way is the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and the provisions by which he proposes to settle this question. I do say again, as I said on the First Reading, if the right hon. Gentleman had proposed a settlement of this question which I deemed fair to those parties who had been supporting and acting under the law in Ireland, I would certainly support him, but that is not the position unfortunately which he has taken up. The right hon. Gentleman, so far from wishing to support those who have acted under the law and in obedience to the law in Ireland, takes a position here as the champion of those who have resisted the law, and resisted it for political purposes. The right hon. Gentleman, I am glad to say, has not put his case upon any unreasonable or improper conduct on the part of the landlords of Ireland, or upon any

    463
    want of protection afforded to the tenants of Ireland under the Land Laws, and it is to be noted that while he proposes to ask the House to vote £250,000 for the purpose of restoring tenants who have no title to the holdings from which they have been evicted in Ireland, he does not suggest there ought to be any legal change in the law for the better protection of the tenants. The whole argument is that if this House is not prepared to yield to tenants who have been the dupes of a dishonest and immoral policy, if they do not do that you cannot vouch for the peace of Ireland. Why do I use the words "dishonest and immoral policy"? I will tell you why. One great statesman who sits on that Bench, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, went over to Ireland in the time of Ireland's greatest agitation, and having got a pledge from Dublin Castle for his own personal safety—
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. SHAW-LEFEVRE,): That is absolutely and totally false.
    MR. CARSON: I accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. [Cries of "Withdraw!"] I said I accepted the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. What am I wanted to do more than that? [Cries of "Apologise!"] The right hon. Gentleman went down to these unfortunate tenants and gave a pledge on behalf of the Party of which he was an eminent Member that the moment they came into power—
    MR. SHAW - LEFEVRE: I must again correct the hon. and learned Gentleman. I expressly said I spoke for myself, and I had no authority to speak for my Party.
    MR. CARSON: Very well, then, I put it in this way: that he expected the peasantry of Ireland to draw a distinction between the right hon. Gentleman as a Member of the Liberal Party and as an ex-Member of the Liberal Cabinet. I make him a present of that. But, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman went down, at all events, and he gave his own pledge that within three months after the Liberal Party was restored to power—
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: One month.
    MR. CARSON: Within one month these tenants would be restored to their holdings. For two years they have been in Office, and the least one might have expected is that after such a pledge given to these tenants he would have tried to effect his object with his colleagues or that he would have resigned his office. But that was the last thing the right hon. Gentleman intended. And why do I refer to that? Because the right hon. Gentleman is the one man of all others sitting on that Bench who in 1882 came before this House and blamed the Irish landlords that they were not firm in enforcing their rights in Ireland, and he was the one man who got up and accused the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), the Leader of the Irish Party, of having adopted a policy that was dishonest and immoral, and complained of the landlords not acting with more firmness in asserting their rights. And this hon. Gentleman is the same hon. Member who afterwards goes down, I think, to the County of Galway, and asks the ignorant Irish peasant to draw a distinction between what he said as a private Member and as a Member prepared to accept Office. What, then, is the whole argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary? He says, if we do not pass this Bill he cannot vouch for peace in Ireland, and the hon. and learned Member who has just spoken made one last appeal, and said, putting it on the lowest ground, we ought to consider the cost to the country. What does that mean—what does it all come to? It simply means this: that unless you pass a Bill, no matter how bad, no matter how unfair, if there is only sufficient disturbance of the peace in Ireland, you are bound to submit. So mob law is the foundation of a Liberal Government; rather submit to that than incur the necessary cost of preserving peace in Ireland. That is the view put forward by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, which is entirely in keeping with a great portion of his administration in Ireland, because he knows as well as I do there are tenants there who have taken farms who are living lives worse than the lives of galley slaves, because he dare not put the law in force against the wish of the Members below the Gangway.
    MR. J. MORLEY: There is no foundation for an allegation of that sort.
    MR. CARSON: We have argued it out before, and all I can say is that every day I receive letters from people in Ireland describing the most outrageous interference with liberty.
    MR. J. MORLEY: Why did he not bring them before me?
    MR. CARSON: I constantly do so; I brought them before the notice of the House on the discussion of his salary.
    MR. J. MORLEY: Hear, hear!
    MR. CARSON: He says, "Hear, hear!" but what did the right hon. Gentleman tell me on that occasion? He said, "What harm is done? True it is a man lost his trade, his windows were broken; true it is his servants left him, his smith would not shoe his horses, but what harm is done?"
    MR. J. MORLEY: I did not say that.
    MR. CARSON: Did he prosecute the person who did this thing? No, he said it would not be advisable to do so. Well, I pass on from that matter and come to the first statement that the right hon. Gentleman ventured to make in, I think, a spirit of confident assurance that did him credit, and which probably is the result of his holding office in the difficult position in which he now finds himself, and that is that he told this House seriously there was no new principle in the Bill.
    MR. J. MORLEY; Hear, hear!
    MR. CARSON: And he says, "Hear, hear!" I should like to ask him two questions, and two questions only. I should like to ask him when was it, by any previous Bill that he can refer me to, ever proposed to take the property of which a man was in occupation and give it to another, and that too without compensation? The right hon. Gentleman says the Act of 1881 was passed which kept on a tenant against the will of the landlord. True it was, but is not that a different thing from this, that where a landlord is in actual occupation of his own property and wishes to remain, the right hon. Gentleman should come forward and say, "Whether you like it or not, whether you are making money by
    466
    it or not, you must give up this property"? But that is not all, because the right hon. Gentleman goes on and says, "Yes; you must give up the property you are in occupation of, and must do so without compensation." I would like to ask the House what is the basis for seeking to put these people practically out of possession of their own property? There is only one argument by which you can put it before the House in a logical way, and it is this: you can say it is for the public good that these tenants ought to be restored to the holdings and the property of the landlord ought to be taken, and that is the only way in which you can argue it. You have not suggested any other reason, no harshness on the part of the landlords or defect in the land laws, because you do not propose to amend them, and therefore the only argument is that it is for the good of the public these tenants should be restored. I ask where is the precedent on the Statute Book that you are compelled to take property for the good of the State, and where it has been done without compensation? Here you do not offer a shilling for compensation. If property is taken for a railway or for any public object whatever, not only do you give compensation to the person from whom you take the property, but the compensation is assessed at a value over and above the market value, because you take it compulsorily. I venture to think the exclusion of the principle that you are to compensate to the fullest extent renders it necessary for everyone on this side of the House who respects the right of property to vote for the Motion moved by my hon. and gallant Friend. But there is another principle involved in this which seems to me to go far beyond anything ever attempted by this House before—namely, the time at which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to disturb those in peaceable possession of the property at this moment. Take the case of the new tenant. What is the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman? He says that a tenant put in possession 15 years ago may now be disturbed at the will of these arbitrators. Has the right hon. Gentleman got a precedent for that? I shall quote a precedent the other way. What does he say to the Statute of Limitation? Under that if a person is in possession for 12

    467
    years he becomes entitled to the absolute freehold, and the right hon. Gentleman says he has a right to go beyond that for three years and to disturb the relations existing and the rights of the man in possession. A more outrageous and unsupported proposal has never been submitted to the House of Commons or any assembly that has the most elementary ideas of the rights of property. I pass from that and come to a point referred to by the hon. and learned Member for St. Stephen's Green Division (Mr. W. Kenny). As the Bill now stands it applies to every holding of every kind and description in Ireland; as the Bill is now framed every tenant of a house in Dublin who has been evicted during the last 15 years has a right to apply to these arbitrators to be reinstated. I want to know does the right hon. Gentleman mean that; does he mean this is to apply to tenancies that are not agricultural; does it apply to town houses or not?
    An hon. MEMBER: Look at the Definition Clause.
    MR. CARSON: I have looked at that; I am not making my point without reading the Bill, and it is because I have looked at the Definition Clause that I am making my point. The Definition Clause says—"The term 'holding' shall have the same meaning as in the definition of the Act of 1881."
    MR. SEXTON: Will that include town houses?
    MR. CARSON: I say it will; the term "holding" in the Act of 1881 is "a parcel of land held by a tenant from a landlord," and that is the description of every house, for every house is built on a parcel of land. Hon. Members may laugh, but it is so. I put that point, whether a holding in a suburb, of 10 or 12 acres—
    MR. T. HARRINGTON: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give any instance where such land was held to be a holding under the Act of 1881?
    MR. CARSON: No, Sir; and I tell him why, because there is another section in the Act which limits the application to holdings that are agricultural. And why was that section put into the Act of 1881? It was put in because, if it had
    468
    not been, the term "holding" in the Act would have applied to every single case in Ireland. And what is more—the hon. and learned Member need not suppose I am making this point on the spur of the moment—I have looked into it, and in the Act of 1887 I find the definition of "holding" says "but shall not include lands otherwise than those which are agricultural or pastoral, or partly agricultural or partly pastoral." But, as I said before, I am not making a special pleading point, and I wish to ask does he mean to apply it to every case in Ireland?
    MR. J. MORLEY: Certainly not.
    MR. CARSON: Does he mean to limit it to agricultural or pastoral, or partly agricultural or partly pastoral land?
    MR. J. MORLEY: To the definition of the holding in the Act of 1881.
    MR. CARSON: Then I ask, does he mean to exclude demesne lands? He does not know. Does he mean to exclude purely pastoral holdings, home farms, glebe lands? I am taking every one of these cases excluded by the Act of 1881, but apparently the right hon. Gentleman has not made up his mind.
    MR. SEXTON: None of those are excluded from purchase.
    MR. CARSON: Every one is excluded from fair rents.
    MR. SEXTON: Not from purchase.
    MR. CARSON: But let me show the importance of this point, and it is this. If you do not exclude these holdings, what will occur? These are not holdings to which a fair rent applies, and the landlord has the same right over them, and if you put them back to-morrow against the will of the landlord, he has the right to turn them out, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman does he mean to exclude them or not? He does not know. For a further reason this is a matter of importance. He proposes to set up a tribunal, and proposes to give it the power of deciding what comes within the Act, and we should like to know, before agreeing to the tribunal, what they will have to decide. We have had up to this, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, different decisions by different Judges affect-

    469
    ing these points, and he and I, and many others, for the last 18 days have been investigating upstairs what are the meanings of all these decisions. We have had the advice of the highest legal advisers to assist us, and what I want to know is this: Is this mushroom Arbitration Court to decide all these points that have been hitherto left to these learned Judges and the Courts, and eventually to the House of Lords? All I can say is, I think the right hon. Gentleman has presented to the House a very rude scheme, when he is notable even to tell us what is the nature of the holdings in Ireland to which he means his scheme to apply. But the matter does not rest there. Not only can you not find out from the Bill the holdings to which this Bill applies, but I defy any person to find out in what cases the arbitrators are to have the power of granting reinstatement. I made this point on the first reading of the Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman did me the honour, as regards the point, in some respects to say when I read the Bill I would be perfectly satisfied. Well, I have read the Bill, and I am not satisfied. I defy anyone reading the Bill to come to any conclusion as to the cases the right hon. Gentleman means to include within the scope of the measure. The right hon. Gentleman excused himself by saying that fair rent was not defined by the Act of 1881. I think the fact that it was not defined has led to a good deal of investigation upstairs and a good deal of difficulty in administration of the Act of 1881. At all events, everyone knew what a rent was, and everyone had some idea of what "a fair rent" was, and therefore in some way or other you might arrive at some sort of conclusion as to what a fair rent was, but I would like to ask in all seriousness who is there who has in his mind at the present moment any idea of any kind as to what is a "primâ facie case for reinstatement?" Up to the present time the law was clear that if a tenant paid his rent and the costs within six months he has a right to be put back; that is all we know about reinstatement, and the only reading to a lawyer would be that a primâ facie case for reinstatement was that a man who was evicted could, if he was prepared to pay up everything including costs, be reinstated within a
    470
    period of six months; but when I am told we are to put back a man who has been 15 years out—who went out 15 years ago because he could not pay, who has stayed out ever since because he could not pay—when I am told that he is in a position to come and make a primâ facie case for reinstatement, I can only think that the most profitable means of occupation for a tenant in Ireland is to be out of possession 15 years. Apparently the case of the right hon. Gentleman is this: that these people who have been out 15 years because they were insolvent have suddenly come to such a position of solvency that it would be an advantage, not only to the State but to the landlords, that they should be reinstated in possession. I do ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us, before the Debate concludes, some idea of what they were doing, and what the arbitrators are to consider as the primâ facie case for reinstatement. I turn to the Bill, and I find the first point is to consider the circumstances of the district. At what date are they to consider it? Is it now, under the rule of the right hon. Gentleman and his assistants in Ireland, or is it under the rule of my right hon. Friend, and, at the time when English statesmen were coming over to make government as difficult as possible. Which of these are you to take? Are you to take the fact of the district being quiet or the fact of the district being disturbed? I would like to ask that of the right hon. Gentleman, for this reason that I can assure him that if the test of whether a primâ facie case was made or not was to depend upon the quiet or the disturbed state of a neighbourhood, the arbitrators will have plenty to do; and it would be a most unfair test to place upon their shoulders. After all they ought to have some indication of what are the proper circumstances to guide them. If they are to take into account the circumstances of the district in a time of quiet or in a time of the neighbourhood being disturbed, what is the use of putting in anything about the circumstances? I find only one other indication, they are to take into consideration the circumstances under which the eviction took place. Does that mean that they are to consider whether the rent was due? The tenant cannot be turned out unless at least a year's rent is due. Does it mean

    471
    that the arbitrators are to consider, when an eviction takes place, whether there was a sufficient disturbance and resistance made to the Sheriffs' officers? Does this mean that if there was no resistance on the part of the tenants, and they acted in a legal way in all circumstances, then they are to be restored? Does it mean that if there was no conspiracy against the payment of rent then the tenants would make out a primâ facie case? If it does, then all I can say is what will become of all the Plan of Campaign tenants? On the other hand, does the right hon. Gentleman mean to lay it down as an indication that even if only there was a conspiracy, then there is a primâ facie case? If so, then, Sir, you are putting a premium upon illegality, and I am sure the last gentleman in the world to do that would be the Chief Secretary for Ireland. But, Sir, if the arbitrators have not been sufficiently troubled in coming to a conclusion as to what are the particular circumstances, I find there is this saving clause: "Any other cause sufficient to authorise the reinstatement of the tenant." What does that mean? Here, again, I must ask, as regards this curious political novelty, what was the necessity of putting the two previous cases in order to trouble those unfortunate gentlemen if any other cause suggested by their own imagination or the knowledge that their own imagination or the knowledge that their salaries would be discussed on the Estimates by hon. Members below the Gangway was to be deemed to be a sufficient cause to make a primâ facie case for reinstatement? I fear that, as regards the origin and the reason of this primâ facie case, it will remain, like "Morley's Mile," insoluble, and shall be relegated to future ages as one of those curiosities which always emanate from statesmen who are trying to do right when they are supported by those who want them to do wrong. As a landlord has nothing to say to this primâ facie case for reinstatement there is a hearing before the arbitrator when the landlord comes in to show cause. I should like to know what it is that the arbitrator will have to consider as sufficient cause shown on the part of the landlord. The right hon. Gentleman has given the House no information on this point. But the question is to be asked,
    472
    "Has the conduct either of the landlord or the tenant been unreasonable?" What is unreasonable conduct on the part of the tenant? Is it unreasonable on the part of the tenant that he should not pay a judicial rent fixed by a tribunal? Of course it is? Well then, Sir, is every tenant who has not paid a judicial rent to be refused reinstatement to his holding? Is that the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman? Is it unreasonable on the part of the tenant to refuse to pay because other tenants will not be reinstated to their holdings. What about all those tenants under the Plan of Campaign of whom the hon. and learned Member for York spoke in such eulogistic terms, and who said they could have settled on the Massereene Estate and would not, because other tenants were refused to be taken back. The hon. Member for East Mayo has told the House that he knew tenants who could pay and would not pay because he told them not to pay. Is that unreasonable conduct or not? Is this tribunal solemnly to hold that it was unreasonable conduct on the part of the landlord because he ejected a tenant who could pay and would not because the hon. Member told him not to pay? That case will arise every day before the arbitrator; it will be the first case he will have to consider. It is to put back these tenants that the Government have brought in this Bill. And before the House passes this Bill let hon. Members recollect that the object of the measure is not to restore to the holdings tenants who have been evicted because they could not pay an exorbitant rent, and because the landlord would not act reasonably towards them, but because they have turned out tenants who were able to pay but would not because, for political purposes, the hon. Member for Mayo advised them not to do so. I have been furnished with the particulars of many cases that will actually arise if the Bill becomes law, and I will vouch for the accuracy of the facts. Twenty-five years ago a landlord let a farm of 200 acres in the County of Kildare, and a new residence he had just erected. Being a lawyer, he found it necessary to live in Dublin. After a lapse of 15 years—that is 10 years ago, which would bring the case within the scope of the Bill—the tenant was ejected for non-

    473
    payment of rent, and the landlord resumed possession. He died five years ago, leaving the residue to his son charged with legacies and other charges to the amount of £3,000. The son gave up his profession in Dublin, went to reside on the farm, paid off the charge of £3,000, and expended £600 in improving the farm. I want to know is that evicted tenant to be restored to his holding? Is that gentleman who upon the faith of the English law has given up his profession in Dublin and expended £3,600 upon this holding to be ejected in favour of the tenant? If not, what protects him under the Bill? If he is, where is your provision for compensation? There is no provision for a shilling of compensation. These cases will multiply as the matter goes on. It is all very well for the Government to be blind to these facts by keeping their eyes on the Plan of Campaign tenants. I would rather have them say outright, "Let the arbitrators put back these Plan of Campaign tenants, and those only," and do it in the light of day. Let us not, because you are trying to wrap it up and envelop it as if you were carrying out a great act of justice, sacrifice the rights of those who have not been mixed up either in politics or in this agricultural revolution which has been going on in Ireland during the last 15 years. Take another case—that of a gentleman who five or six years ago evicted a tenant for some years' rent amounting to £1,000. The farm was near his own house, so he broke down his own demesne wall and took in the farm. Is that evicted tenant to go back to his holding? If not, what is there in the Bill to protect the landlord? It might be said that in such a case the purposes of the land had been altered. Then the theory must be that if a landlord has sufficiently altered his land be is to go scot-free, and if he has not he is to be mulcted by the Bill. Nothing more ridiculous can be conceived. A third case has been supplied to me the other day by a lady. She let to a tenant a farm lying near her residence. Some seven years ago the tenant was evicted for non-payment of rent. The lady's trap was overturned as she was driving in the road; her servants left her; and all of what the Chief Secretary calls "the innocent paraphernalia of boycotting" was brought into
    474
    play. The unfortunate woman was landed in the Bankruptcy Court, and, after paying such small dividends as her relatives could afford, she has been restored to the peaceful possession of the farm, while the tenant is a drunken "corner boy" in a town in Ireland. This lady asks whether the British Parliament is going to send back to her very door the man who has been making her life miserable and wretched. What is there in the Bill to prevent the tenant going back? He, at all events, has sufficient "circumstances of the district" to rely on, because he has been prominent in boycotting his former landlord and in resisting the land-grabbing, according to the creed of hon. Members below the Gangway. Then there are numerous cases where the landlords have taken up the farms and built houses and made improvements. I have details of a case in which the tenant was evicted for £1,200 of rent. The landlord found the buildings and farm deteriorated. In the first few years he spent much money in getting the farm into good condition, and last year he made £600, which was £200 over the rent. Is that landlord to take back the evicted tenant? If so, who is to compensate him? Or is the property which he has created by his own improvements to be confiscated? It might be said that that is a case which the arbitrators would disregard. What is there in the Bill to bring that about? It is especially a case in which the tenant would do well by going back, because he would reap the advantage of all the capital put into the ground by the landlord. Are these landlords to be deprived by a vote of the House of this property which they have managed to build up at so much trouble? If that is to be the policy of the House and the view of the English Government towards Ireland, then those in Ireland who are prepared to live as law-abiding citizens will be justified in resorting to any extreme. [Cheers.] Hon. Members below the Gangway cheer ironically. They are welcome to their cheers. All I can say is there must be a point, if Governments begin to confiscate, at which you will raise the indignation of those who are willing to submit to your laws, and they will be perfectly right in so doing. Let me take another set of cases which were referred to on the First Reading, which the right hon. Gentleman stated are

    475
    specifically defined in the Bill, but which I venture to say are not. During the last 15 years the Land Judge's Court—Mr. Justice Monroe's Court, as it is called in Ireland—has been turning out tenants and making Court lettings to new tenants with all the sanctity of a Court letting, and with the guarantee of the Landed Estates Court, which gives an indefeasible title—a guarantee, above all others, that this was done under the law. I want to know, if Judge Mouroe put a new tenant into a holding yesterday, is the Government by their Act of Parliament going to turn him out to-morrow? I want to know also what will be the position of these two Courts in Ireland. Judge Monroe will say:—"Here is a tenant who has not paid rent to the Court; I am bound to enforce his rent; I will put him out." You will say, "I do not care for the High Court and Judge Monroe; I will put him back." What is the conflict of decision between these Courts? Where does it end? What confidence will there be in the law in the future in Ireland if the Judges of the Courts Parliament itself has set up are going to invite tenders for farms, and the Government are going the next day to set up a tribunal to turn the tenants out? Then there is the case of the purchase tenant. I did think the right hon. Gentleman would tell the House something as to what would be done in that case. Is he going to turn out those tenants who have bought their farms, on whose credit the State has advanced money? It is one thing to advance money to a solvent tenant who is able to work his farm, but it is another thing to say that, having advanced a sum of money on the faith of his being solvent, the Government are to turn round and force on the State a tenant who was absolutely insolvent. Some of these tenants have been in since 1890, and must have paid four instalments, which gives them a certain share in the freehold of their farms. What is to be the fate of these tenants? What is to be the ultimate destination of the security of the State, which has given the money on the faith of solvent tenants being put there? It may be that in our hurry to get away for a vacation we might be anxious to throw all these matters aside and pass any Bill rather than sit into next month; but unless these matters are regarded a
    476
    state of chaos and confusion will be created in Ireland utterly unparalleled by anything that has hitherto taken place. I now come to the position of the new tenants, and I was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman expressed so little sympathy with them. He said they were called "planters." That word was never known in Ireland until the Plan of Campaign was adopted in 1886. Up to 1886, when the Plan of Campaign was adopted, there were hundreds and thousands of these new tenants in Ireland who were living on as friendly relations with their neighbours as they possibly could. The right hon. Gentleman asks us—"Will the planter be more subject to outrage if the Bill passes than if it did not pass?" and I fear in asking that question he throws out encouragement in a very dangerous direction in Ireland. I know the right hon. Gentleman said he did not want to prophesy. He only gave us what I will call a vague threat.
    MR. J. MORLEY: It is the hon. Member's own prophecy, not mine.
    MR. CARSON: I have not prophesied anything up to this. All I say is that until the Plan of Campaign was adopted there were thousands of these new tenants living on friendly terms with their neighbours. Now, the arbitrators, without hearing these tenants, are to be given power to make conditional orders that they shall give up possession. This meant saying to the evicted tenants—"We have done all in our power. Here is a conditional order. Go and present it at the head of the new tenant, and fire it off as best you can. Get rid of him and then we will reinstate you." It might be that if the Bill should be thrown out there might be more outrages than if the Bill passed. But is that a reason for passing the Bill? To urge such an argument is to uphold mob law and is equivalent to telling people that if they will only commit a sufficient number of outrages they will bring the question they desire to raise within the sphere of practical politics. We have had enough of this sort of thing before, and we have found that by adopting such a policy we were sacrificing those who kept themselves within the law for the benefit of those who violated it. In opposing this measure we can justify our consciences by the knowledge that we are siding with

    477
    those who are in the right. If we pass this Bill in its present shape, have we good reason for supposing that there may not be outrages upon those persons who have taken evicted farms in Ireland? Let me give the right hon. Gentleman, if he has not seen it, the criticism of a charitable Christian minister in Ireland on the right hon. Gentleman's Bill—
    "Forsooth, were those tenants who had given up their holdings to secure justice to all the other tenants in Ireland and bring Home Rule within measurable distance to be banished for ever from the homes of their fathers and see public thieves left in possession of their property? No, a thousand times no. They would never submit to that, and he warned the Government that if they did any such thing they would deluge Ireland with bloodshed."
    That was the Rev. Father Humphreys, of Tipperary. The right hon. Gentleman said—"Oh, it is only the Rev. Father Humphreys." Yes, it was only a Catholic clergyman preaching to his flock, and after all it was in Tipperary. I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman knew something about Tipperary, because I think I have a recollection that at one time he said he could manage the whole of Tipperary with a single policeman from a country town in England. Perhaps, however, he knows more about it now. The rev. gentleman went on to say—
    "But when they see these public robbers and grabbers are to be left comfortable in their farms the wild justice of revenge would set in once more in Ireland, and the assassin and the hangman would begin their operations among them."
    That is the criticism upon the exclusion of one class of evicted tenants from the Bill, whilst at the same time you put back other evicted tenants into farms which are held by the landlords themselves. But Sir, upon what principle do you assess the compensation to be paid to these new tenants. As well as I understand the Bill you are to give them some small sum for compensation, half of which the State is to advance and the other half is to be secured upon the promissory note of the evicted tenant, The right hon. Gentleman has himself appealed to the Land Act of 1870. What is the right of the tenant in possession under the Act of 1870? Under the Act of 1870, if a landlord dispossesses a tenant, the latter is en-
    478
    titled to compensation ranging from three to seven years' of rent paid. Why should the State pay less compensation for disturbance? What is the use of passing an Act for the protection of the tenant laying down a scale of compensation, and then, owing to political exigencies which may result in turning the Government out of Office, in order to keep them in to disregard the whole antecedent land legislation which this House has passed? I have read over the evidence of these Massereene tenants, and if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that he is going to get rid of these so-called Massereene planters by anything he has got in this Bill I have to tell him he will only get rid of them when they have been put down by superior force. If anybody takes the trouble to read that evidence he will see that these men, by the fruits of their industry and determination, have got an interest in these holdings which would not be compensated by the scale of compensation you have laid down in the Act of 1870. I desire to say a word or two as regards the new tribunal. I must say, of all the extraordinary provisions of the Bill, I believe the fact of your setting up this new tribunal in Ireland is the most extraordinary and the most dishonest, and I will tell you why. What do you want a tribunal for? Have we not tribunals enough in Ireland? Why, Sir, you first were not satisfied with the ordinary High Courts of Justice, but you set up the Encumbered Estates Court, which then became the Land Judge's Court, and because they proceeded to carry out the law you were not satisfied with them. In 1881 you passed the Land Act and set up another tribunal by establishing the Land Commission. In 1885 the Conservative Party passed the Land Purchase Bill and, not satisfied with the Land Commission, set up a Purchase Commission, and much good has it done. You have now three Land Commissioners, two Purchase Commissioners, a Land Judges' Court with all their attendant expenses and different staffs, and now you propose to set up a new Land Commission and a new Arbitrators' Court. For what are you going to set it up? To fix rents? But that is the purpose for which the Purchase Commissioners were appointed in 1887. If these are the two chief functions of this tribunal the necessity for it does not,

    479
    therefore, exist. But the Government are creating it not because they wish to have the administration of the law, but because they want to perpetrate a political job. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he had succeeded in getting three impartial Irishmen to carry out the Bill. I have no doubt the Chief Secretary has done his best to secure three impartial gentlemen as arbitrators, and as my countrymen are the most unprejudiced people on the face of the earth, I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman has succeeded in the task he laid before himself. The hon. and learned Member for York said there had been no criticism so far in the Debate of these three gentlemen. I am not going to criticise them, because I have not had time since the right hon. Gentleman spoke to consider the various reasons — no doubt bonâ fide reasons on his part—why these three gentlemen were selected. As regards Mr. White, the praise that has been lavished upon him is nothing too high. Mr. White has been a leader of the Equity Bar for many years, and I was rather sceptical about that gentleman having accepted the post; but, of course, after the Chief Secretary's statement it must be so. Mr. Greer, another of the gentlemen, was examined in the Committee on the Irish Land Acts some days ago. I had not the privilege of being present, but I cannot find any great satisfaction with the evidence Mr. Greer gave among the hon. Members with whom I act. As regards Mr. Fottrell, I have the pleasure of knowing that gentleman, and the only recollection I have of anything connected with the public career of Mr. Fottrell is that he was originally appointed solicitor or secretary to the Land Commission in 1881 by Mr. Forster; and that, having issued a very strong and very curious circular in the interests of the tenants, he was called upon to explain, and eventually he resigned his appointment. However, I say nothing against Mr. Fottrell; and these are the only matters I desire to call attention to with regard to the three arbitrators. The right hon. Gentleman made the extraordinary statement that he was glad the arbitrators would be enabled to conduct their proceedings in private. Is it to be a tenet of the Liberal Party that the Press must know
    480
    nothing of the reason's which actuate the members of this new tribunal?
    MR. J. MORLEY: All proceedings of this kind in the Land Judges' Court are conducted in private.
    MR. CARSON: No. The Land Court is an open Court. All the proceedings before the Land Judges are perfectly public. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. If this were a matter of politics I would give way to him, but it is a matter of which I have had considerable personal experience.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I do not say that all proceedings in the Land Judges' Court are private, but I do say that very important proceedings of a similar character to those which will be conducted before this new tribunal are private.
    MR. CARSON: That I absolutely deny.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I have the authority of the Judge himself for saying so.
    MR. CARSON: That I absolutely deny. I am perfectly sure the right hon. Gentleman means to accurately represent what the Judge said, but I would like to ask Judge Monroe what proceedings in his Court bear the slightest analogy to any proceedings under the Bill. Of course, if Judge Monroe has to read a title he does not read it in public; but all controverted cases involving questions of fact and law in the Land Judges' Court are open to the Press, and I am sure that Judge Monroe will admit that I am absolutely right in saying so. If ever there was a case in which the full light of public opinion ought to be thrown upon the proceedings of a judicial body, it is in the case of this extraordinary tribunal. If the right hon. Gentleman says that these proceedings are to be conducted in private, I tell him that is a new doctrine of the Liberal Party, and is now put forward for the first time. I always understood that it was an essential doctrine of the Liberal Party that the fullest light of criticism and public opinion should be thrown on every matter involving a judicial decision. I should like to ask one question more. What will be the result of passing this Bill? The result will be to practically abolish the power of enforcing rents in Ireland.

    481
    It will practically put an end to the inclination of any person whatever to take a farm from which another man has been evicted. I am glad to say that, though the right hon. Gentleman has refused to give details, the taking of evicted farms has been far more frequent during the last 12 mouths than previously, and I give the right hon. Gentleman full credit for bringing Ireland to a condition under which people will take evicted farms. But what man will take an evicted farm if he knows that perhaps the day afterwards the Government may set up another of those tribunals for restoring the tenant who has been evicted? Moreover, if the tenant 10 or 15 years ago when in possession was unable to pay the rent fixed by the Court, what chance will he have of doing so now, when he is without capital and without the means of stocking the farm? "He will get it somewhere or other," is the hopeless ejaculation of the right hon. Gentleman. I notice that the Mathew Commission—and no one will say that that Commission unduly strained the evidence in favour of the landlords—have stated that these tenants are not in a position without capital to go back, and they suggested that money should be advanced to them to do so, the money to be charged on them with the rent. But you do not do that. The Government will be putting back insolvent tenants upon the landlords, whether they like it or not, and with the mere chance that somehow or other they will be able to meet the rent when it becomes due. I say that, to put back these tenants in the present condition of Ireland without supplying them with the means to work the farms will practically be to hand over to an insolvent body of persons the whole tenure of land in the country. What are the reasons of the Government for doing all this? As I said before, they do not suggest that the law under which these tenants held was insufficient to protect them. And what is the position of the Plan of Campaign teuants? Not one of them could have been put out without full compensation being paid by the landlord. In case the rent was exorbitant, or the landlord was unreasonable, the Land Court, under the Act of 1870, had full power to award to the tenant the very fullest compensation. In the case of holdings under £15—and the
    482
    majority of these evicted holdings are under that sum—the landlord who put out a tenant for non-payment of rent has to give the same compensation as if he disturbed him for his own benefit by notice to quit. Again, under the Act of 1887 every tenant—and the majority of those men were evicted since 1887—had the right, provided they could show that their non-payment of rent was not due to anything wilful on their part, to apply to the Land Court for time in order to stay eviction, and to have the arrears of rent paid by instalments. There are some 1,400 of these tenants. Why did none of them take advantage of these Acts? Why did none of them apply for compensation or for proceedings to be stayed? It is not protection, or reduction of rent, or compensation they wanted, but to further the Plan of Campaign movement of hon. Members below the Gangway—a political movement which had for its object to make the Government of my right hon. Friend impossible. What the House is called on to do now is to sacrifice the rights of landlords and the rights of the new tenants, not for the purpose of benefitting the tenantry of Ireland, but in order to pay a political debt, and I venture to say that this is the first time in its history that Parliament has been asked to apply public funds to such a purpose.
    MR. HALDANEsaid, the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University had been awaited by the House with considerable interest. They knew of the hon. and learned Member's force and vigour; they knew of the distinguished career he had had in Ireland, and they knew of the most remarkable success he had achieved by raising himself at once to a great position at the English Bar. He did not think that the expectation of the House had been disappointed so far as the speech of the hon. and learned Member was concerned. The hon. and learned Member had made a brilliant speech worthy of his reputation. He regretted, however, that the hon. and learned Member should have spoken in a different spirit from that which animated him on the First Reading of the Bill, when he said—
    "He should be certainly sorry to adopt a non possumus attitude on this question. He knew enough of Ireland to say that he believed and admitted that the question of the evicted

    483
    tenants, whether they were rightly or wrongly evicted and whether they were evicted for the purpose of advancing a particular class of politics or not—that as long as it remained unsettled the question of the evicted tenants meant a great deal with reference to the peace of Ireland."
    The hon. and learned Member, while opposing the Bill now, had given no indication of any alternative positive policy. Where was the sympathy of the hon. and learned Gentleman with the object of those who had brought forward the Bill? There was not a trace of it in his speech; and as every word of the speech was cheered and apparently received with approval by hon. Gentlemen opposite the Government now knew what they had to face from the Opposition. He confessed he was greatly disappointed. He had never been one of those who attacked the Irish landlords. He knew that amongst their body were many men who tried hard and honourably to do their duty; and as he and many of his friends looked fairly at the Irish land question with regard to the interest of the landlords, they had expected that their attitude would have been reciprocated by a desire on the other side to look fairly at the question in the interest of the tenants. Surely the time had come when the hatchet might be buried—at any rate for a time—when, in the long war waged in connection with Irish land, a flag of truce should be raised and they should go forth to succour the wounded. The question of the evicted tenants was a question of the first importance in its relation to social order, and it concerned the interests of the landlords of Ireland no less than the interests of the tenants. It was a question which ought not to be dealt with in any spirit of partisanship. Those who criticised the Bill would do well to bear in mind the situation in which they stood. If the House rejected this Bill it would commit a colossal blunder similar to blunders which it had committed before in dealing with the Irish land question. In 1880 the compensation for disturbances clauses were rejected by the House of Lords, and the consequence was that in a few months there arose the biggest agrarian combination that was ever known, and the landlords of Ireland must have rued the day when they rejected the advice that had been given to them. Within a short time Parliament had to eat its
    484
    own words in connection with that matter. Then, in 1886, Mr. Parnell brought forward a Bill proposing that rents fixed before 1885 should be reconsidered and readjusted, and one year later the proposal received the approbation and sanction of the Cowper Commission. But the representatives of the Irish landlords in the other House would have none of it, and the consequence was that within six months the Plan of Campaign was started.
    MR. CHAPLIN: It was started before that.
    MR. HALDANEsaid, the Plan of Campaign was started in October, 1886. The Conservative Government came into Office in August, 1886. Mr. Parnell's proposals were rejected in September, 1886, and the Plan of Campaign was started at the end of the following October. The House of Lords rejected Mr. Parnell's proposals, and the country was now undergoing some of the consequences. But he only desired to recall to memory the evils and mistakes of the past in order to appeal to the fair spirit which actuated Englishmen and which made it possible for them—no matter what Party might have been right or wrong in the past—to look at the situation they had to deal with to-day, and to take some step forward towards the solution of the problem of social order with which they were confronted in Ireland. To his mind this Bill was the mere logical outcome of steps Parliament had taken before and which Parliament was bound to follow up now. The initial step was the Encumbent Estates Act, which sought to get rid of insolvent and bankrupt landlords. So far its object was urgent, but the mistake that was committed was in not seeing that the land which passed away from a class which, with all their faults, were at any rate in close and friendly relations with their tenants, would fall into the hands of men who were likely to use the land for the purposes of commercial speculation. Rents went up, and iniquities were perpetrated which he hoped would never again disgrace the history of land in those countries, with the result that face to face with an acute situation Parliament stepped in and passed the Act of 1860, which sought to abolish the old relations of tenure, which set up different regulations between

    485
    landlord and tenant, and ignoring the root of the land difficulty in Ireland, laid down the law of strict contract. That law was lived under for ten years, and then came a time when the spirit of land legislation underwent a complete change. He remembered reading in The Times—which at that period took a more moderate and impartial view of political Parties than it did to-day—the report of a Commissioner it sent to Ireland, and who declared that the tenant had, if not a legal property, at least a moral property in the soil as great as that of the landlord, and that that state of things urgently called for the attention of Parliament. Then came the Act of 1870 which established compensation for disturbance. That was followed by the Act of 1881, which established free sale and fair rents, and did that which the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University said was now for the first time attempted to be done in the Evicted Tenants Bill—namely, it enabled the Court in the case of a tenant under ejectment to adjourn the proceedings in order that a fair rent might be fixed and the tenant continued in his holding. Those principles were extended by the Land Act of 1889. Remembering those things, the question they had to consider was, What was the position in which they now stood? There were in Ireland 4,000 evicted tenants, and their case had to be dealt with. With some of them there would no doubt be considerable trouble, but with some there would be very little trouble. He read the other day an article by Lord Monteagle on this subject, and in that article Lord Monteagle—an Irish landlord who, though he had strong views against Home Rule, earnestly desired to do his duty towards Ireland—took a line wholly and totally different from that taken by the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down. Lord Monteagle said that what was wanted was a body which would undertake conciliation, because by means of conciliation the cases of a large number of the 4,000 evicted tenants might be dealt with without legal intervention. With regard to the other cases, it was necessary to have a tribunal to go into the merits of the dispute, and a tribunal such as that to be set up under the Bill, which could act with greater freedom than any of the existing legal tribunals.
    It being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

  BRITISH MUSEUM (PURCHASE OF LAND) BILL.—(No. 315.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, that £200,000 seemed to be a large amount to pay for this land. He did not say it was unfair, but he should like to ask if the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury could give information as to the steps which had been taken to value the land? Was it done by arbitration?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,)was understood to say that the hon. Member might rest satisfied that the amount was reasonable. The land had been valued by the surveyor of the Office of Works and the Treasury valuer, and both these gentlemen considered the sum moderate. The price would probably have been much larger if the opportunity had not been taken to purchase before the leases were renewed.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, that as he saw the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Stephen's Green, Dublin, in his place he would invite him to put in a plea for the carrying out of several outstanding works in connection with the Dublin Museum.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The Bill has no reference to Ireland.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, that the only way in these matters to obtain any benefit for Ireland was to object to English Bills. Though he had great reluctance in placing himself in opposition to the present Government in this case he must point out that in regard to the building in Dublin, which was analogous to the British Museum in London, they had great difficulty in inducing even the present Government to carry out outstanding works. This appeared to be an excellent opportunity to ask the Government if they intended in regard to similar appeals

    487
    affecting Ireland to make the smallest concession to the demands of gentlemen connected with the Kildare Street Museum and buildings of that character.
    SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, that so far as he knew, there was no application now before the Treasury as to the enlargement of galleries or museums in Ireland. If such applications should be made they would be duly considered. A considerable amount of money was being spent this year in respect of public buildings in Ireland.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he should not say another word if the hon. Member for the St. Stephen's Green Division was not in a position to offer any observations.
    Clause agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendments, to the House; to be read the third time To-morrow.

  PEEBLES FOOT PAVEMENTS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.—(No. 304.)
  Read the third time, and passed.
  NOTICE OF ACCIDENTS BILL.—(No. 272.)
  Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.
  PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN BILL.—(No. 242.)
  Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.
  SUPPLY—REPORT.
  Resolutions [18th July] reported.

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1894–5.
  1. "That a sum, not exceeding £257,600, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Salaries and Miscellaneous Charges of the War Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1895."

  2. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,516,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Retired Pay, Half-pay, and other Non-Effective Charges for Officers and others, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1895."

  3. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,355,200, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals and the In-Pensioners thereof, of Out-Pensions, of the maintenance of Lunatics for whom Pensions are not drawn, and of Gratuities awarded in commutation and in lieu of Pensions, of Rewards for
  488
  Meritorious Services, of Victoria Cross Pensions, and of Pensions to the Widows and Children of Warrant Officers, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1895."

  4. "That a sum, not exceeding £164,700, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Superannuation, Compensation, and Compassionate Allowances and Gratuities, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1895."

  Resolutions agreed to.

  COUNTY COUNCILLORS (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL.—(No. 168.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  MUSSEL SCALPS (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 169.)
  Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [10th July] read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACT, 1878.
  Copy presented,—of Order of Secretary of State extending Special Exception [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (HUDDERSFIELD).
  Copy presented,—of two Orders made by the Council of the County Borough of Huddersfield with regard to the alteration and division of the Longwood Polling Districts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
  ADJOURNMENT.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I beg to give notice that the suspension of the Midnight Rule will be moved to-morrow (Friday) evening for the continuance of the Debate on the Evicted Tenants Bill, if it is not concluded by midnight.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As far as I am able to estimate the probabilities, there is no chance of our being able to finish the Debate to-morrow. I only say this for the convenience of the Government.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.

SAT FIRST.
The Lord Forester.
TOOK THE OATH.
The Lord Vaux of Harrowden.
REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR SCOTLAND.
The Clerk of the Parliaments delivered a certificate of the Clerk of the Crown that the Viscount Falkland and the Lord Torphichen had been elected as Representative Peers for Scotland in the room of the Viscount Strathallan and the Earl of Lindsay. Certificate read.
BOARDS OF CONCILIATION.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWgave notice that on Monday next he would ask their Lordships to go into Committee on the Boards of Conciliation Bill. The noble Lord representing the Board of Trade had asked him to delay the Committee stage for a time; but after the announcement made last night in another place, he thought it desirable to give this notice.
FRANCE AND SIAM.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD LAMINGTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, on private notice, whether he had called the attention of the French Government to their continued occupation of the port and town of Chantaboon despite their assurance that they would leave that place as soon as the trial consequent on the murder of M. Grosgurin had been completed; whether the independence of Siam was not thereby imperilled; whether he could give any assurance that the lives and property of British subjects would remain secure; and whether he could state when the Commission for the demarcation of the limits of the "buffer-State" would begin its labours, and who would be the British Commissioner?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Earl of KIMBERLEY): My Lords, I am not able to give the noble Lord much information in answer to his questions. With regard to Chantaboon, there have been no very recent communications with the French Government; but the noble Lord will see by the Papers, which will, I hope, shortly be presented on the subject, the exact position which Her Majesty's Government have taken in regard to that matter. As to the safety and independence of Siam being secure, I do not wish to express any apprehension or opinion that it is in danger; but these are all matters of opinion, and the noble Lord is probably as well able to judge of them as myself. As to the Commission for tracing out the frontier of what is termed the buffer-State, some time ago the French Government pointed out to us that owing to the climate of the locality where this investigation was to take place it was not possible that the Commission for the delimitation of the neutral zone between the French and British possessions could proceed with safety to the spot until the autumn, and Her Majesty's Government assented. Arrangements are being made for the constitution of the Commission and for its proceeding in due time to the place for the purpose of determining the limits of the buffer-State.
  LORD LAMINGTONasked whether the Commissioners had not yet been named?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Not yet; but they will be named in due time.

PAROCHIAL ELECTORS (REGISTRATION ACCELERATION) BILL.—(No. 162.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord TWEEDMOUTH): My Lords, this Bill is introduced by the Local Government Board in order to give effect to the provisions with regard to the elections required under the Local Government (England) Act which received your Lordships' assent in the early part of this Session. Those elections are for District and Parish Councillors, for Guardians, and for London Vestrymen and auditors. The Bill when in the House of Commons

  335
  was referred after Second Reading to a Select Committee, and was passed without further objection. The date named in the Local Government Bill for the first elections this year was the 8th of November, or such later date as the Local Government Board might determine. If the law remained unaltered, at present the period for revising the rolls would be from the 8th of September to the 10th October, and the new Register would not come into force until the 1st January next year. This Bill proposes that the period of revision should be from the 3rd of September to the 22nd of September, and that the new Register should come into force on the 30th of November this year. This, of course, would require some increase of machinery, and the Bill, therefore, makes arrangements for the appointment of an additional number of revising barristers, the expense of which addition will fall not on the local authorities, but will be borne by the State. I ask your Lordships now to read the Bill a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Tweedmouth.)
  LORD HALSBURY: My Lords, I rise not in the least for the purpose of opposing this Bill, because I presume your Lordships on both sides of the House desire to see the object for which it is introduced carried out. I only wish to suggest to the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill that whoever drafted the Bill was apparently not practically familiar with registration; and, if he will permit me, I will endeavour to point out the difficulties and suggest amendments which will make the measure workable. I do not think it is in a workable form at present. I mention that to the noble Lord in order that he may consult his draftsman, and see whether the Bill cannot be put into such a shape in Committee as will make it workable.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

ZANZIBAR INDEMNITY BILL. (No. 167.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, this is simply a Bill enabling the Bank of England to pay over a certain sum of money to the representatives of the Sultan of Zanzibar. The money cannot be paid over without this authority under the guarantee given by the Treasury. The Bill is merely for that purpose.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

  TOWN IMPROVEMENTS (BETTERMENT).
  Report from the Select Committee considered (according to Order).
  LORD HALSBURY: My Lords, your Lordships will remember the position in which the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees and the Committee of your Lordships' House which has been sitting on this subject were placed by a Resolution which was passed last Session, that the House desired to express its opinion that the proposal for assessing capital values instead of annual values, and for creating new and arbitrarily defined areas of taxation, such as was contained in Clause 41 of the Bill, ought not to be embodied in a Private Bill, but if found just and equitable should be dealt with by the whole House. Although, as a matter of fact, that Resolution was neither a Standing Order nor a Sessional Order, it would have been impossible for any Committee of this House, after it had been passed, to have felt themselves justified in treating any Bill coming within the ambit of that Resolution, and containing such a clause, as one which could be entertained. Accordingly, that course was pursued. The Chairman of Committees, as your Lordships will remember, brought the matter to your Lordships' attention again this Session, and accordingly a Committee was appointed which, in the absence of any General Order dealing with this matter, it was thought ought to have, at all events, the means of dealing with this system of taxation if it could be found practicable to do it, provided certain safeguards were established with regard to

  337
  the principle contained in such a Bill. With one slight exception, to which I will refer presently, I am happy to say that the Committee have unanimously arrived at a conclusion which will be satisfactory to your Lordships, and without attempting to go through any of these difficult theories of betterment I think I may say that the general principle of obtaining, if possible, for a Local Authority some part of the profit which is made out of their own expenditure, has been affirmed as not only possible but as not being unjust. I think it only right, my Lords, to say that I think the alarm created by the principle which was originally put forward has been to a great extent mitigated by the evidence placed before the Committee, and as shown by the conclusions at which they have arrived. No doubt there was a certain alarm felt at first at the notion that large areas were to be taxed, and that there might be possibly some evasion of that taxation by persons within that area without incurring very serious expense or responsibility. I think the London County Council, who have been foremost in this matter, have explained, by their authorised officer, that it was a mistake to suppose that they were desirous of having any area of taxation. What they desired was that they should have a power to tax owners, but that each individual owner should himself have the right and be entitled to contest the additional taxation placed upon him before some tribunal. Whether the particular tribunal suggested was one which your Lordships would entirely approve of is not to the point; but at all events that was the explanation in view of there having been such an alarm as was undoubtedly felt at one time, because they had drawn certain areas on the maps which, according to their explanation, were not strictly areas of taxation at all, but were rather areas of exclusion—that is to say, that no person outside the lines drawn could be made to pay this additional taxation, but that their intention was—and they desired Parliament to give effect to that intention—that each particular person whose property was affected or involved in this Betterment charge should himself have individually the right to contest it. That, I think, removed a difficulty in the minds of some of the noble Lords who
  338
  formed the Committee; at all events, they have formed the conclusions which your Lordships will see set forth in the Report, and accordingly it is my duty to move that your Lordships do now agree with those recommendations. My Lords, I should say one word with reference to the phrase which occurs in the Resolution, and which I believe the Duke of Argyll took exception to; it is that in which the Committee have professed to define what Betterment really is. I think I may say on behalf of the Committee that it was not proposing to lay down any theoretic view or enunciation of what Betterment was, but that it was using that word in its ordinary recognised sense. They used that language in reference to a proposal which they were about to make, but I shall certainly not suppose that any noble Lord would be bound by the exact definition of Betterment which they have given. The Committee understood I think thoroughly what they were dealing with, and I do not consider that the word as used by them was intended to be an exhaustive definition at all. At all events, it will probably be enough for practical purposes to say that that word should be used in reference to the precautions now recommended by the Committee, and with the exception of the one point which I now propose to say a word upon the Committee have unanimously agreed to the rest of these resolutions. That point was with reference to what your Lordship will understand by the term "worsement." I am glad to say that no definition of that has been attempted, but there is one passage in the Report recommending that when a man's property has been to some extent injured or "worsened" that in such circumstances the question whether the property had been bettered or "worsened" should be taken into consideration in respect of the Betterment Tax. Two noble Lords, Lord Cowper and Lord Tweedmouth, objected to that, and upon it took place the only Division which occurred in the Committee; in respect to all the other recommendations the Committee was entirely unanimous. There have been, as your Lordships are aware, two Committees sitting on this subject. One has disappeared. Those Committees have already dealt with this very question, and I hope your Lordships will think it

  339
  right now to agree with this Committee in their Resolution.
  Moved, "That the House do agree with the Report of their Select Committee."—(The Lord Halsbury.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): My Lords, the House is, I think, very much indebted to the Committee which has been sitting in reference to this matter for the Report which they have made. But it is a serious matter to ask the House to adopt this Report en bloc, considering that we have not the evidence before us on which they acted. If it is to be treated as having been adopted on the judgment of this House, I think your Lordships will agree that before adopting it we should have some knowledge of the evidence which came before that Committee. I may say that I have endeavoured to obtain a copy of it, but have not been successful. I say that a knowledge of that evidence is desirable, especially in reference to one proposal in this Report. The matter of Betterment has, no doubt, been much discussed, and one knows much of what has been said on one side and the other. I do not suppose one would be likely to find much that is really new in the evidence which came before the Committee. But there is one point in this Report which it seems to me is open to considerable question, and that is the power given to the owner, if any claim for Betterment is made, to insist that the Local Authorities shall purchase the premises. I should certainly, before committing myself to such a proposal, like to have seen the evidence on which it is founded. I think that is a very serious question of public policy, whether it is expedient to insert such a provision for Local Authorities to become, to a greater extent than they are at present, landowners, because the proposal is that they should buy out the occupiers and owners subject to the existing penalties. The effect of it certainly will be this. Of course, the price to be paid to the owner in that case will have to be ascertained by arbitration, and the expenses of the arbitration will have to be borne by someone. In my experience in any contest of this sort between an individual and a public body the individual invariably gains. I think it is
  340
  certain that if a local body have to buy they will have to give the owner something more than the value of his property. The result will be that they could only claim Betterment, the principle of which is here accepted on the terms of being obliged to buy the property in respect of which that Betterment is claimed at something beyond its value, and, of course, subject to the risks which are incurred by a person who proposes to buy property and sub-let it, but which risks it is not desirable always to impose upon local bodies. Upon that point there is a good deal to be said on the one side and the other. All I wish to say is this: Of course, it would be useless to oppose the proposal for adopting this Report; but I would point out that we are adopting it without the necessary information, and therefore one cannot under those circumstances feel that the House would be bound exclusively by it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, there is nothing in the recommendations of the Committee that would compel the local body, whatever local Authority it might be, to keep the property when they had bought it. They could always sell it again, and I quite concur with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that it is a very serious question of policy how far you should encourage local authorities to remain the possessors of land. But the mere fact that you allow them to buy the land does not conclude that question at all, because, as your Lordships know very well, local bodies do constantly buy land and sell it again. The condition on which the noble and learned Lord has placed his finger is very important in the interests of owners. The noble and learned Lord used, I think, a somewhat extreme expression when he said we had accepted the principle of Betterment. That is hardly so. In admitting that in certain circumstances Betterment may be just, we, at the same time, point out the extreme difficulty of appraising and ascertaining the improvement on which the charge is to be made; and by adopting the particular provision to which the noble and learned Lord has alluded we practically made this provision the present condition on which a local authority may try to get for the Public Purse a portion of the benefit of the improvement which has

  341
  resulted from the work carried out. That is attained by what is called the principle of recoupment—that is to say, by buying more property than is wanted for the absolute construction of the work, and using the improved value of that property by subsequent sale for the purpose of repaying the expenditure of the local authority. That plan has not been found generally economical, in London at all events, though I believe it has been adopted in other parts of the country, because there has been followed in London a practice of buying up at the same time the actual trade interests of the occupiers or tenants who were following their vocations, a practice which necessarily involves destroying and throwing into the sea the goodwill of those trade interests, and thereby implying a considerable waste of money. We have recommended that that practice should cease, and I believe that with that precaution recoupment may now be made a profitable operation. But what I wish specially to point out to your Lordships is this: We are passing from the practice of recoupment to the principle of Betterment. There is great doubt indeed whether Betterment can be levied without danger of injustice to the private owner on whom it is levied; and, therefore, what we practically say is this: That if an owner is not prepared to admit that the value of his property is enhanced to the extent of the Betterment charge which is made upon him, he may have recourse to the principle of recoupment, and require that his property shall be bought by the local authority at its value previous to the execution of the work, and that the local authority may rely upon that purchase for the recoupment of expenditure which they desire. I think that is a fair and just compromise, and that it will protect private interests from any danger of injury. But it would be impossible to take the rest of our recommendations without that one recommendation which is vital to the rest. The only difficulty in such delay in the matter as the noble and learned Lord suggests would be this, and it is a serious difficulty: that Lord Onslow's Resolution still stands, and until it is withdrawn no Bill containing Betterment proposals can pass through Committees of this House without dropping those provisions. This
  342
  provision, therefore, will practically remove the obligation which Lord Onslow's Resolution now imposes upon Committees in dealing with this question. I, therefore, hope your Lordships will accept this Motion for the purposes of expediting the present Bill. Your Lordships may, I think, trust to the unanimous conclusion of a Committee appointed from all parts of the House, and comprising numerous distinguished members of the London County Council upon its body; and I think if you accept the Motion of the noble and learned Lord this will become the guiding principle of Select Committees in dealing with the question, and the principle of Betterment will have a fair chance of being tried without any danger of doing injury to owners.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I am sure the House will feel greatly indebted to the Committee for the patient consideration which they have given to the investigation of this question. The difficulty lies not so much in the principle of Betterment itself, but in the manner in which it is to be applied consistently with justice. As the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has said, we have not the evidence before us, and therefore it is a little difficult for us to realise the case which was laid before the Committee. We can only judge of the case which was presented to them as far as we see it stated in the Report. If I had not heard the statement of the noble and learned Lord who was Chairman of the Committee I certainly should have been under the impression that there was to be an area of Betterment, and I should have been inclined to ask whether it was intended that within that area there should be a uniform or a graduated rate. The old practice of recoupment would clearly have pointed to a graduated rate, but as I understand now the question of Betterment will merely be raised in individual cases. Whenever it appears, either to the London County Council or to any other municipal body that the property of some individual has profited to such an extent as to make it desirable that a special charge should be made upon him, they will give notice to him and his case will then be heard. If that conception is right, of course Betterment

  343
  is a much smaller question than it would appear if there had been an area defined over which it was proposed to levy a rate either uniform or graduated. I merely make this remark in passing, but I presume the noble Lord will in some form or other move a Resolution so as to form a guide to the Committees who may have to deal with questions of this sort, so that they may deal with them in an approximately uniform manner.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): My Lords, I venture to think the House ought to feel much indebted to the Committee for the care and attention which they have given to the consideration of this very difficult subject. After the Report has been agreed to there will be, I think, no difficulty in proceeding with the Bills now before your Lordships embodying the Betterment principle. I do not think there can be any serious difficulty in framing proper clauses dealing with most of the recommendations of the Committee. But, as some responsibility will rest upon me for the drawing of the clauses, I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord opposite for some explanation of Clause 7, which has been referred to by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. That clause introduces questions certainly of great importance and perplexity. For instance, the word "owner" is used, and I am a little doubtful as to what is meant by that word. If it includes the leaseholder, as I presume it should, what would happen if the freeholder considered that a Betterment charge was a fair one, and did not contest it while the leaseholder did? In that case, is it the opinion of the Committee that the local authority should be bound to buy up the interest which the leaseholder has? Because, as I understand it, the Betterment charge is to be spread over the different persons who have an interest in the property in proportion to the interests which they have in it. Therefore, in that case I presume the interest of the leaseholder would be bought without there being a necessity for buying up the freehold property. Then, my Lords, another point would be this: What would happen assuming the Betterment charge should be assessed say, 10 years from the time when the Act was passed as regards
  344
  the reversions, the immediate interests having possibly 20 years to run? Is it desired that the Betterment charge should run for those 10 intermediate years, that is the 10 years after the work was completed? and if the charge is made (your Lordships will understand that I am, of course, using arbitrary figures here) would it be at the end of the 20 years that the property would be bought by the local authority? Then the last point is that the local authority should not be compellable to dispossess the occupying tenant. I am not aware that that is the case at present—that they are bound to dispossess an occupying tenant. Of course, as soon as the local authority serves on the tenant this notice to treat—that being a contract—the tenant can compel him to buy, but it is not necessary for the local authority, if they do not want a property, to serve notice to treat at all. I have brought these points before the House with the view rather of eliciting from the noble and learned Lord information, because it is desirable, when the clauses come to be drawn in Committee, that they should be drawn as accurately as possible in order to represent the views of the Committee.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord TWEEDMOUTH): My Lords, the noble and learned Lord and the noble Earl opposite have laid great stress on the unanimity of the Committee; but I wish to say one word with regard to that unanimous expression of opinion, as I was a Member of the Committee. My own opinion was, and I think it was shared by noble Lords on this side of the House, that while we accepted these recommendations as a great advance on the Resolution of Lord Onslow of last year, and so pro tanto altering it, we could not at all commit ourselves to the exact wording of the conditions attached by this Report to the principle of Betterment, and especially as far as I am concerned would that remark apply to the sixth and seventh conclusions of the Committee. As to the sixth conclusion, which allows the owner to claim for worsement as well as betterment, I took very strong exception to that proposal in the Committee, but I am sorry to say I found myself supported by only one other Member of your Lordships' House on the Committee. I was quite

  345
  ready to take an equally strong objection to Clause 7, which enables the owner to force the local authority to buy rather than submit to the Betterment charge. But I am bound to confess that I believe if I had taken that course I should have found no support at all on the Committee, and therefore I thought the wiser course to pursue was to endeavour to introduce mitigating words. Those mitigating words to a great extent are the words of which the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Morley) has just asked an explanation. My point is that in supposing an owner were allowed to force the local authority to buy, the local authority should then be able to buy under the best and most favourable circumstances. It was clearly proved to us, as I think we should all agree upon the Committee, that where local authorities suffer in purchasing property is from their not being able to carry on the leasehold or trade interests, but were obliged, or, at all events, that it was the custom that the tenants should at once be dispossessed, the local authority having to pay compensation to those various interests as well as to pay the freeholder or long leaseholder. Now that was the meaning of the first clause of those mitigating words, which runs thus—
  "Under such circumstances, a local authority purchasing a freehold or long leasehold interest shall not be compellable to dispossess the occupying tenants."
  Following under that is a note that the local authority should be allowed to take the position of the existing landlord or vendor under the proposal, and allow the intermediate interests to run out, taking what benefit it can from the proceeding. The second proposal was alternative. What I endeavoured to propose was that the local authority should have the option of not becoming responsible for the intermediate interests at all, but should, instead of that, merely purchase the reversion, leaving the present owner, the vendor, to dispose of the existing interest—to carry on the leaseholds, and do all that was necessary in order to work out the existing intermediate interests. I believe that both those proposals if carried into effect would have great advantage for the local authorities, and would have great effect in mitigating the
  346
  proposal, which I believe to be very undesirable, and one which has the great disadvantage to which the noble Earl has referred—namely, of offering inducement to local authorities to become large owners of property and to carry on a variety of businesses which are altogether outside their duty. That, my Lords, is all I need say, I think, with regard to the Report. I accept it as an advance, but I cannot myself at all, so far as I am concerned, say that I agree to many of the conditions which have been attached to the recognition of the principle of betterment in the Report.
  LORD HALSBURY: My Lords, I somewhat regret to hear from the noble Lord what he has just said, because when Members of a Committee meet and adopt a Report without having even divided upon its recommendations they are supposed to agree in the recommendations of that Committee. For my own part, I may have my own views as to the principle of betterment, but am I to be at liberty to say hereafter that I do not agree with it? I was Chairman of the Committee, and I did not divide against it, and I should regard myself as bound by it—as being my opinion at that time, at all events. But I should never be able to be bound or to act upon the finding of any Committee if a noble Lord might afterwards say, although I do not divide upon it, I must not be regarded as agreeing in or abiding by the decision of the Committee. That would be a very odd result indeed. My Lords, I am in the singular position of being called upon to explain the Amendment which the noble Lord himself introduced. Without entering upon any criticism of it, I may say that we agreed in Committee in terms which I will not repeat here. We are dealing with the practice of Parliament, and the practice of Parliament has been, except in cases which I will mention in a moment, only to allow the particular work, or whatever it may be that has to be done, to be done under this condition, that when the local authority or body concerned has purchased land for the purpose of an undertaking it has no right to acquire and hold other land. That has been done in the case of railway companies; after a certain time they are obliged to offer the land not required to adjoining

  347
  owners, and unless the land should be wanted for a station in the future, or for some other purpose after a certain time, the land actually goes back to the former owner. I only give that as an illustration of the policy of Parliament with regard to such bodies not holding land except for the purpose of the undertaking or improvement itself, and when you are dealing with street improvement the ordinary rule would be that you should only permit the local authority to hold so much land as is necessary for making the road or whatever the improvement may be. Parliament has to some extent departed from that, and has enabled many local authorities to hold land adjoining the road or improvement, and to get back by recoupment their expenditure by becoming the owner of land. We were in fact informed upon the Committee that the London County Council held rents to the extent of some £90,000 a year, which I think your Lordships will agree is rather an invasion of that principle of Parliament, whether that was the right figure or not, that was what was intended by the noble Lord's Amendment, and certainly I assented to it in that sense that instead of taking the ordinary course and compelling the local authority to have only what was necessary for its purpose that it should be permitted instead of pulling down the house and re-erecting others on the site not occupied by the improved street—that it should be permitted to hold the property for the purpose of allowing the leases to run out. But the great point made on behalf of the London County Council was that where you have to deal with trade interests there is an extraordinary expenditure necessarily incurred in getting rid of them, and, so far from its being an advantage to the County Council, they have been compelled to buy out trade interests at an extravagant price. The result has been disastrous to those who have adopted that course, and that has in a great measure injured the recoupment principle. The noble Lord's Amendment was a great improvement upon that. Now, as regards the meaning of the word "owner," as I understand that word, here it means the owners respectively; that is to say, the owners of the premises of the lease and of the reversion. I was a little startled at hearing Lord
  348
  Morley speak of the rate being imposed 10 years afterwards. I will take one typical instance which was given before us. It was a lease of 40 years, where the Betterment charged could not operate for that time. It was only with regard to certain improved buildings by the side of the road, and it was held that as there was a 60 years' lease, which meant a 40 years' occupation of the premises as vinegar works, the improvement could not have any effect upon it for that period, because it was bound to be held in its then condition of vinegar works. However, my Lords, I am aghast at the notion of the assessment rate being withheld for 10 years. It was impossible for the Committee to lay down any fixed number of years, as each case, of course, differed in its circumstances, and while it was pointed out that you should not have it too soon in some cases, in others you should not delay too long while the occupation of the property was held in suspense. Certainly no Member of the Committee imagined that that was what was proposed.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: May I be allowed to explain what I meant from the passing of the Act? I gave the instance, of course, as hypothetical, purely.
  LORD HALSBURY: I do not know, my Lords, that it is necessary for me to add anything to what I have said; I merely wished to answer the noble Lord's question.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY AND LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of ROSEBERY: My Lords, I do not know that it is necessary for me to add very much to what has been said from this side of the House. But I feel bound to enter a prompt caveat to the doctrine which has been laid down by the noble and learned Lord opposite, that unless you divide against a proposition you are supposed to agree with it. Is that true of a Committee? I do not know that I am a great authority on the practice in Committees, but my recollection in no respect agrees with it. But if such a principle would not apply in Committees, does it apply to this House—that we are to be taken as agreeing with every proposition against which we do not divide? We

  349
  certainly do not agree with every Bill and Motion against which we do not divide. My Lords, I am completely at a loss at the prospect opened up by the assertion of such a doctrine. I have not yet had time to realise it; but pending that realisation I would ask time to consider it, and in the meantime I enter my emphatic protest, even if I do not divide against it. With regard to this Report which, after all, was not so unanimous as the noble and learned Lord would make out, the conclusion of the Committee was not so clear as would appear on the face of it. It may possibly be of great advantage to the Chairman of Committees, but the great point of it is this—that it marks an enormous advance since August of last year. In August last we had two Debates in which the principle of Betterment was spoken of as some new and nefarious principle only to be handled with tongs; that even if accepted at all it must meet with only a very limited acceptance, but that it was hardly possible for the House to consider it at all. Now we have a much larger view taken, and we have it practically accepted as a doctrine by this Committee. The noble Marquess says he is not to be taken as accepting it quite fully, but at any rate he allows a Committee to consider the principle of Betterment in a Private Bill without protest or criticism, and that, to my mind, is a considerable advance.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As far as I am concerned, as the noble Earl has been good enough to mention me, he will find nothing in my speech at the end of August last at all inconsistent with the finding of the Committee or with my action now.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I do not apply that remark as to advancing to the noble Marquess. I do not say that the noble Marquess has moved an inch; he very seldom does. I only point out that the House has moved, and it is always a pleasure to know that it has even been temporarily advanced. Now, my Lords, I pass to a consideration in this Report of an educational kind. The Report contains this principle of purchase, which, I confess, seems to me open to considerable question. The noble Marquess
  350
  has described it as giving the option of recoupment to the tenant who is about to have this charge imposed upon him. But then that is a one-sided option—it does not give the public local body any option in the matter at all, and that does not seem to me entirely fair. What will he the option of such a provision? You will have the tenant able to put considerable pressure on the body by saying, "If you do not estimate your betterment at something considerably less than the sum at which you have estimated it, I will force you to purchase." You may say that the compulsion to purchase is not a very severe compulsion, when, as the evidence seems seems to show, the London County Council owns considerable property already; but recoupment as hitherto understood is a very different thing to what is contemplated by this clause. When for the purpose of making a great improvement it is a very different thing if you have to buy a great estate, and if you are to be compelled to purchase a number of scattered properties all over the region over which the improvement may be made. It may be very expensive work, and one which will be by no means a source of profit. I will carry the matter further; with regard to the London County Council, there is one very grave inconvenience which may arise. Take the case of a public-house. In carrying out an improvement, a public-house might be made to face a thoroughfare, and instead of being in a dark, narrow lane, might flare with all its gas-jets on some great open avenue where it would exercise great attraction. The amount of betterment assessed by an arbitrator on such a property might not unfairly be a considerable sum. The owner of the public-house might thereupon say he was not obliged to pay that sum, and the London County Council would be compelled to buy the property I presume at the price set upon it by the arbitrator. What would be the result? The London County Council have laid down for themselves a hard-and-fast line that they will not possess a licensed public-house, and the moment they acquire such a property at probably a fancy price they will be compelled to let the licence drop and to lose the whole advantage of its value to the ratepayers. Some of your Lordships may think that

  351
  is a principle they ought not to have laid down. It is possibly a principle which all the Members of this House might not accept without reservation, but it is a principle upon which they have acted at some cost since they have been a Council, and from which they would not be inclined very willingly to depart. Then there is another point. The noble and learned Lord says this question of purchase would apply to all the interests involved: those of the tenant, of the reversioner, and of the freeholder. That, I think, might produce a very difficult position, because one interest might elect to be paid off by the London County Council while another might not, and the position of the property in question might be so complicated, the interests might be so vast and varied, that it would be extremely difficult to ascertain what they were. The Council might possess different interests in several houses in one street, and I do not think that is a fair position for any Council to be placed in. I am not one of those who think that it is very desirable to confer upon municipal authorities the power of holding a considerable amount of house property. It overloads them; it oppresses them in the exercise of their more immediate and natural functions; and I think there are other obvious objections to it which will occur to any one who has had practical dealing with this question. But there is no doubt that these objections do not occur to the advanced school of municipal reformers. Their wish would rather be that municipal authorities should possess all the property in a town, that they should possess the right to all the increment that may accrue in rents; and, therefore, as far as you are altering the law, if you do alter it in this direction, on the recommendation of your Committee, you are by no means serving Conservative interests by promoting rather than resisting those daring municipal views to which, I think, many of your Lordships would be sorry to give support. But when all is said and done, we on this side of the House cannot but rejoice that there is no impracticable objection offered to the adoption of this principle of Betterment in the presentation of Bills, to even a small extent, and, so far as that goes, we are prepared to accept the Report as, at
  352
  any rate, an instalment, showing a better state of mind.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I rise to express my surprise that the noble Earl the Prime Minister should have said it was the opinion of the majority of the House that the principle of Betterment was unjust. My Lords, I have a distinct recollection of the Debate to which the noble Earl has referred. In the first place, there was the Resolution which I put upon the Paper and to which your Lordships agreed. There was not a single word in that Resolution which said that where property was improved the owners should not pay a special contribution. All that the Resolution said was that the question of Betterment should be settled by the whole House rather than by a Committee considering a Private Bill. I fail entirely to agree with the noble Earl that any noble Lord on this side of the House did in the abstract resist that principle.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: On which side of the House does the Duke of Argyll sit?
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I was just about to say that the noble Duke (who is not in his seat to-night) did say that in his opinion a special contribution for property specially benefited was already made by the increased contribution to the rates which that property must necessarily bear after the improvement had been effected, but I do not think that even the noble Duke denied that where a special benefit was conferred upon property a special contribution should be made in respect of it. All he argued was that that special contribution was made at present under the existing law. I think the noble Earl has a little misapprehended the intention of the Committee with regard to the principle of recoupment. I do not think the Committee at any time anticipated that the local authorities should acquire property here, there, and everywhere, for the purpose of recouping themselves. All the Committee have recommended is that where a local authority acquires property, as it now does, which has been required for the purpose of improvement they should not be compelled to purchase the trade and leasehold interests in the property, but should also be empowered to buy only the right of the owner or of the

  353
  reversioner to the land; that they should let the subsidiary interests run out, and then they would come into possession of the property with the full advantages of the improvement they had themselves effected. If, as the noble Earl said, it should chance that such property should be licensed property, of course one cannot help admiring the self-abnegation of the London County Council in refusing to hold public-house property. At the same time, I would point out to the noble Earl that it would be quite within the powers of the London County Council to dispose of any licensed premises they may acquire, and so obtain all the advantages of the improvements which they have carried out.
  Motion agreed to.

FINANCE BILL.

  FIRST READING.
  Bill brought from the Commons; read 1a.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I would press upon the noble Earl that we should have sufficient time to make ourselves masters of the provisions of this measure, which I believe are very difficult and complicated. I will not now go into any question as to the separate functions of the two Houses in this matter, but it is quite clear that if we are to pass the Bill we should have an opportunity of understanding it, which I am told is not very easy. I trust the noble Earl will not think it an extravagant request when I ask that the Second Reading should not be taken before this day week.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I rather envy the facility of noble Lords who will be able to make themselves masters of all the details of this Bill by this day week. But I do not think that it is necessary, for the purpose of passing the Bill, that they should make themselves masters of it, because I deprecate altogether the idea that the House of Lords has anything to do with Money Bills. Any discussion of it must obviously be academic, and therefore I should have thought "the least said, soonest mended" with regard to this measure. Of course, it will interpose considerable delay if the Second Reading of this Bill is postponed till Thursday, because it will put off the
  354
  next stage till Friday, and that would prevent the passing of the Bill into law for 10 days. However, I am not master in this House, and if the noble Marquess wishes it we will take the Second Reading on the day he names.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I be allowed to protest against the doctrine which the noble Earl has laid down, especially after what has already passed this evening. If the noble Earl will refer, he will find that, in the days of Lord Derby, a Bill dealing with finance was not merely discussed, but an Amendment to it was moved in the House of Lords. An important Amendment was moved, and a Division was taken upon it. At that time the Liberal Party had a majority in this House. They may seem strange to the noble Earl, but so it was. I do not know what the causes may have been which have led to an alteration in that respect, but the Liberals at that time had a majority in this House, and resisted any alteration in the Bill, they carried their view by a majority of 32. I quote that circumstance to show that, certainly since I was in Parliament, and for a very long time before, the House of Lords possessed, and did exercise its right to deal with the provisions of a Bill of this kind, and even, if necessary, to amend such a Bill. I do not, however, stop to enter into the law dealing with this subject. It is, indeed, very complicated. The noble Earl must, however, be aware that it has been laid down by Mr. Gladstone that the House of Lords have never admitted the privilege claimed in this matter by the House of Commons and has never abandoned its right to consider money Bills; and when the noble Earl lays down, ex cathedrâ, from his present place, such a doctrine as we have just heard from his lips, I am bound to point out what the actual technical form of constitutional right is in this House.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I should like to know whether it is intended by the noble Marquess to affirm that this House has exercised the privilege within any time that we can remember of amending any Money Bills. I have always heard that this House could exercise the power of rejecting a Money Bill as a whole; but I have also always

  355
  heard it stated that amendment of a Money Bill, whatever has been the abstract right of this House, has long been abstained from. If the attempt to introduce it is about to be renewed on this occasion, I hope that the noble Marquess will give us notice of any Amendment before he moves it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That I readily promise to do. But to answer the question of the noble Earl, I would beg him to refer back to the year 1826. It is a year to which some of us can go back.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Certainly; it is the year in which I was born.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: An auspicious year in every respect. In that year a Money Bill was attacked, and the House of Commons accepted the Amendment. If the House of Commons takes exception to an Amendment, all that we can do is to pass an Amendment which causes the rejection of the Bill. I am not expressing the slightest intention of moving an Amendment to the Finance Bill, and I do not know whether any noble Lord has any such intention. I only demur to the doctrine enunciated on the other side of the House, which appears to me to be unsound.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I would remark, in the words of a predecessor of the noble Marquess, that a good deal has happened since then, and I should not be inclined to say that the Earl of Derby, with all his talents and ability, is the safest parallel to take or the surest guide to follow. He was the Leader of the Opposition at the time when the Bill which has been referred to was rejected in this House. I understand from the noble Marquess that he does not intend to propose any Amendment to the Finance Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Not myself.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Therefore, I presume all that we are asked to postpone the next stage of this Bill for is a certain amount of barren discussion. Is anything more than that contemplated?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Are all speeches barren which do not end in a Division?
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I think all speeches are barren which lead to no practical result.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That remains to be seen.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Then we will fix the Second Reading of the Bill for Thursday.
  Bill to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next.—(No. 168.)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.—(No. 121.)
Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
NOTICE OF ACCIDENTS BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN BILL.—(No 145.)
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.—(No. 125.)
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No 14) BILL. (No. 137.)
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 17) BILL.—(No. 123.)
House in Committee (according to Order): Amendments made: Standing Committee negatived; the Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.—(No. 150.)
House in Committee (according to Order): Amendments made: Standing Committee negatived; The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 18) BILL.—(No. 151.)
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read. 3a To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.—(No. 122.)
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
SEA FISHERIES (SHELL FISH) BILL. (No. 141.)
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
LOCOMOTIVE THRESHING ENGINES BILL.—(No. 158.)
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LOCOMOTIVE THRESHING ENGINES BILL.—(No. 158.)

  PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to consolidate the Acts relating to the prevention of cruelty to and protection of children—Was presented by the Lord Chancellor; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 169.)
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, Three o'clock.